Steve Harvey: Anti-atheist Bigot

[Waldo Tunnel]

With Harvey's increasing media exposure this becomes all the more
relevant:

"You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he’s an
atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person
who don’t believe in God… what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at?
It’s nowhere. You gotta get into this stuff."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-experts-rip-on-atheists/

[Dakota]

On 1/9/2013 6:05 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> With Harvey's increasing media exposure this becomes all the more
> relevant:
>

> "You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he�s an

> atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person

> who don�t believe in God� what�s his moral barometer? Where�s it at?
> It�s nowhere. You gotta get into this stuff."
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-experts-rip-on-atheists/
>

Theists have regularly babbled about a 'moral compass' but the term
'moral barometer' is new to me. What's next? A moral tire pressure
gauge? I moral speedometer?

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Jan 10, 2:13 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2013 6:05 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> > With Harvey's increasing media exposure this becomes all the more
> > relevant:
>

> > "You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he’s an

> > atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person

> > who don’t believe in God… what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at?

> > It’s nowhere. You gotta get into this stuff."
>
> >http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-...

>
> Theists have regularly babbled about a 'moral compass' but the term
> 'moral barometer' is new to me. What's next? A moral tire pressure
> gauge? I moral speedometer?

You're funnier than Harvey is.

[Dakota]

Unfortunately, Harvey's trying to be serious.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:13:04 -0600
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2013 6:05 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> > With Harvey's increasing media exposure this becomes all the more
> > relevant:
> >

> > "You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he’s an

> > atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person

> > who don’t believe in God… what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at?

> > It’s nowhere. You gotta get into this stuff."
> >
> > http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-experts-rip-on-atheists/

This ritualistic vilification of atheists is actually a barometer in a
way too because it indicates their perceived "threat level." So, the
more threatened they feel, the more it means that atheism is likely
gaining, or at least that they're finding it more difficult to convince
the skeptically minded in today's better-educated modern societies.

To me it looks like a panic attack, for they know not what to do as the
compounding mountains of scientific evidence seem endless, and rising
even faster perhaps than the Himalayas. I think this "rising Himalayas"
metaphor is interesting because not only is the height of the actual
mountain advancing 4mm. to 6mm. annually, there are other environmental
factors such as temperature and air pressure changes occurring on the
mountain; what's most compelling is, like with scientific progress, the
weather system is also gradually effected globally by the advancements.

As for the vilification of atheists, it's also a form of intolerance,
and it's important to take it seriously and defend oneself against it
by not showing intolerance, but by reflecting on the conflict as yet
another opportunity to educate people about fallacies. Don't attack
the person, attack their argument, especially if you can turn their
exact argument back against them without relying on fallacy, for this
is better than any "moral high ground" could ever be.

> Theists have regularly babbled about a 'moral compass' but the term
> 'moral barometer' is new to me.

Perhaps a barometer is more fitting since it is concerned with pressure
rather than how a compass is concerned with direction.

> What's next? A moral tire pressure gauge? I moral speedometer?

Ha ha! Great ideas! It will be easy to tell if Sceintologists get
involved in this if an "M-meter" that measures "moral thetans" appears
in the new age marketplace.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Atheists don't have a moral dilemma."
-- Christopher A. Lee (April 17, 2012)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:59 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:13:04 -0600
>Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2013 6:05 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>> > With Harvey's increasing media exposure this becomes all the more
>> > relevant:
>> >
>> > "You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he’s an
>> > atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person
>> > who don’t believe in God… what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at?
>> > It’s nowhere. You gotta get into this stuff."

I had to look him up - I'd never heard of him. He seems a thoroughly
nasty piece of work.

>From Wikipedia...

On March 27, 2009, Harvey appeared on an episode of The Tyra Show
with Tyra Banks to promote his book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a
Man.[16] During the course of the interview, Harvey advised that
women should not date atheists. Saying:

"You sitting up there talking to a dude and he tells you he’s an
atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You talking to a person

who don’t believe in God. What’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at?
It's nowhere."

On May 30, 2009, Harvey appeared on an episode of Larry King Live
guest hosted by Joy Behar.[17] During that interview, Harvey
reiterated his assertion that women should not date atheists, who he
claimed have "no moral barometer". Harvey stated that he refuses to
speak to anyone claiming to be an atheist, who he said are
"idiot(s)".

>> > http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-experts-rip-on-atheists/
>
>This ritualistic vilification of atheists is actually a barometer in a
>way too because it indicates their perceived "threat level." So, the
>more threatened they feel, the more it means that atheism is likely
>gaining, or at least that they're finding it more difficult to convince
>the skeptically minded in today's better-educated modern societies.

It tells the world a lot more about him and his type than it does
about us.

>To me it looks like a panic attack, for they know not what to do as the
>compounding mountains of scientific evidence seem endless, and rising
>even faster perhaps than the Himalayas. I think this "rising Himalayas"
>metaphor is interesting because not only is the height of the actual
>mountain advancing 4mm. to 6mm. annually, there are other environmental
>factors such as temperature and air pressure changes occurring on the
>mountain; what's most compelling is, like with scientific progress, the
>weather system is also gradually effected globally by the advancements.
>
>As for the vilification of atheists, it's also a form of intolerance,

It's an example of the sort of crap we are expected to put up with
from theists every day.

>and it's important to take it seriously and defend oneself against it
>by not showing intolerance, but by reflecting on the conflict as yet
>another opportunity to educate people about fallacies. Don't attack
>the person, attack their argument, especially if you can turn their
>exact argument back against them without relying on fallacy, for this
>is better than any "moral high ground" could ever be.

As we see here, they imagine that treating them with the contempt they
deserve, ie as stupid, bigoted, nasty liars is unprovoked.

If they imagine that an imaginary alpha male is the only thing that
makes people behave decently, then they are amoral sociopaths. And
they seem to be proud of that.

As well as mortally offended when you take what they say at face
value.

I hope he never gets within a hundred miles of my loved ones when he
loses an easily lost belief. And these include decent theists who are
neither the amoral sociopaths or bigots that he is.

His "moral barometer" hasn't made him into a decent person.

Of course, he'd get defensive and say it isn't the only thing stopping
him from doing bad (and it didn't stop him here).

But if so, why hasn't he the courtesy to grant that these other things
also apply to non-believers?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

He's probably getting airtime from the media because he's good for
their ratings, which makes sense because the media rarely care about
ethics and morals. Negative emotions seem to have a stronger impact
and it seems that mass media almost always caters to this angle.

He's a good fit for them because they tend to just count commentary and
complaints without first categorizing them, and in that industry it's
definitely a "more is better" game (advertisers are the driving force,
usually, who really don't care who buys their products as long as
they're profiting from more sales -- if it takes putting an idiot on
the air to drive sales, then from a business perspective "so be it").

Christopher Hitchens did very well for the mass media, and he did so
with high intelligence, thoroughness, credibility, and a dash of humour
at just the right moments. But I suspect a lot of people were drawn to
him because he was putting idiots in their places as if an ant was
being crushed by a caravan of steamrollers. He really needed to have
his own TV show, and I'm confident that he would have provided Jerry
Springer and the others with some very serious competition.

> >> > http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-experts-rip-on-atheists/
> >
> >This ritualistic vilification of atheists is actually a barometer in
> >a way too because it indicates their perceived "threat level." So,
> >the more threatened they feel, the more it means that atheism is
> >likely gaining, or at least that they're finding it more difficult
> >to convince the skeptically minded in today's better-educated modern
> >societies.
>
> It tells the world a lot more about him and his type than it does
> about us.

Yes. Although, it really says nothing useful about us at all, and just
spreads yet more misleading information.

> >To me it looks like a panic attack, for they know not what to do as
> >the compounding mountains of scientific evidence seem endless, and
> >rising even faster perhaps than the Himalayas. I think this "rising
> >Himalayas" metaphor is interesting because not only is the height of
> >the actual mountain advancing 4mm. to 6mm. annually, there are other
> >environmental factors such as temperature and air pressure changes
> >occurring on the mountain; what's most compelling is, like with
> >scientific progress, the weather system is also gradually effected
> >globally by the advancements.
> >
> >As for the vilification of atheists, it's also a form of intolerance,
>
> It's an example of the sort of crap we are expected to put up with
> from theists every day.

The moderates let it happen. They provide a safe haven for the
extremists to operate in, and then they distance themselves from it as
if they're completely innocent. Why didn't they object to the
extremists earlier on? Because, deep down, they agree with them while
admiring their gumption to be extreme.

> >and it's important to take it seriously and defend oneself against it
> >by not showing intolerance, but by reflecting on the conflict as yet
> >another opportunity to educate people about fallacies. Don't attack
> >the person, attack their argument, especially if you can turn their
> >exact argument back against them without relying on fallacy, for this
> >is better than any "moral high ground" could ever be.
>
> As we see here, they imagine that treating them with the contempt they
> deserve, ie as stupid, bigoted, nasty liars is unprovoked.

Each person deals with them differently. I make a concerted effort not
to get into the personal attacks with them, but that's my approach
which suits my own personal "atheistic values."

Why my opinion is of others who do fight back is irrelevant because,
like me, they're exercising freedom of expression. What the theists
seem to be trying to exploit is common values in society as if atheists
don't share them, implying that atheists somehow reject them, but as
religions in general gradually continue to lose membership I suspect
that this approach too will gradually become less effective (and more
obvious).

> If they imagine that an imaginary alpha male is the only thing that
> makes people behave decently, then they are amoral sociopaths. And
> they seem to be proud of that.
>
> As well as mortally offended when you take what they say at face
> value.

It's a desire to control, which is a form of oppression. By putting it
in terms of a bifurcation fallacy like "either you're with us, or
you're going to suffer" excludes grey areas and middle grounds, and is
a manipulative tactic designed to pre-condition people to regard
"thought crime" as a reasonable concept.

Bit by bit they push, because they know full well that dumping their
entire screwed up belief system on people at once will actually scare
them off, and the recruitment effort will most definitely fail.

> I hope he never gets within a hundred miles of my loved ones when he
> loses an easily lost belief. And these include decent theists who are
> neither the amoral sociopaths or bigots that he is.
>
> His "moral barometer" hasn't made him into a decent person.

No doubt his definition of a "decent person" conflicts with yours, but
if I had to put money on it I'd bet on yours being the one that
includes atheistic values like honesty and integrity.

> Of course, he'd get defensive and say it isn't the only thing stopping
> him from doing bad (and it didn't stop him here).

His justification is likely that his deity supports him. Does a biased
deity sit will with you? I suspect not. It seems to me to be a
contradiction from people who make this claim because they also tend to
claim that their deity is perfect for everyone (the quotation below my
signature adds relevant perspective to this point).

> But if so, why hasn't he the courtesy to grant that these other things
> also apply to non-believers?

Intolerance. It's also a sociopathic emphasis on differences.

> >> Theists have regularly babbled about a 'moral compass' but the
> >> term 'moral barometer' is new to me.
> >
> >Perhaps a barometer is more fitting since it is concerned with
> >pressure rather than how a compass is concerned with direction.
> >
> >> What's next? A moral tire pressure gauge? I moral speedometer?
> >
> >Ha ha! Great ideas! It will be easy to tell if Sceintologists get
> >involved in this if an "M-meter" that measures "moral thetans"
> >appears in the new age marketplace.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:23:46 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent

American channels won't show that kind of program. The closest are PBS
and the Discovery Channel, but too often they're scared. These have
very low viewing figures compared to the popular channels that pander
to the lowest common denominator.

The Discovery Channel showed BBC's excellent David Attenborough Frozen
Planet series but weren't going to show the final program on global
warming until they caved in to viewer pressure.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Jan 20, 3:23 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

Note: Harvey's bigoted comments were a part of the promotion for his
book, some time back. But today Harvey has a daily national TV talk
show on ABC and hosts a daily game show: The Family Feud on CBS. He
also has a radio talk show (I think). I wasn't saying he is
necessarily pursuing his bigotry in public at this time. I was just
pointing out what kind of guy he is, despite his cascading media
success.

[,,,]

[harry k]

> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/03/31/relationship-...

Displays his ignorance of where morals came/come from. Religion did
not establish them, it coopted existing morals of the society it is
in. What's moral in one may not be (and hasn't) in another, e.g. even
cannabalism was moral in places not so long ago.

Harry K