Now, normally, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid at a site taking offence over something which was posted here. Normally though, offence is intended and it actually cheers me up to see the recipient has realised and taken the required offence 🙂
The flip side, and possibly an off shoot of an over-developed Atheistic moral code, is that when no offence was intended, yet some one took offence, I feel the need to say sorry. Bah.
It is in this light, that I should point out that Heathers’ recent post (Technorati Links Mystery) was not written with the aim of offending Parabiodox and it certainly was not meant to be snide about the fact that he was still showing up. Heather responded with a comment, but as I am aware, not all of you read the comments (bad people), so this is what she wrote:
Blast. I must have explained this so badly. I dont dare mention today’s Technorati nonsense…….
(a) Parabiodox took my bracketed (ffs) after his name as “snide” when he referred to it in his blog. Sorry,Â Parabiodox, it was supposed to be ironic that we were getting loads of links from a christian and none from the atheist blogroll. (By the way, I wasn’t complaining that Technorati wasn’t indexing our posts. It is. It’s taking links in our text as links)
(b) My issues don’t have to do with getting authority off the Blogroll. It is to do with Technorati not seeing the Blogroll, when it’s in the form of a script.Â Whether it’s on our site or anybody else’s, Technorati just doesn’t see any links on it and hasn’t for weeks.
This is about as close to apology as I can get, so I hope it clears matters up 😀 .
[tags]Parabiodox, Site Admin, General, Comments[/tags]
First off, Parabiodox has responded to my “Do Christians Have a Sense of Humour” post and it seems the answer is “yes, just a bad one 🙂 .” When I asked “Do Christians have a sense of humour? … or was he just all cut up over the death of Jerry Fallwellâ€¦“” the response was:
No. It means I can go back to watching Teletubbies again with a clear conscience.
Can’t say fairer than that, can I?
On a more serious note, following up on the sad story of the crazy “honour” killing, there is a post on anthropology.net which examines some of the issues from an anthropological view point (Heather, Take note). For the stronger viewer, the video footage is available from that site, although I have not watched it my self and can not comment. As an aside, if you had asked me a few years ago I would have been stunned to even think of considering Anthropology (or any social science) as a science, but I am learning to change my ways.
It is never easy writing blog posts on a Friday, too much to do in the run up to the weekend, so please forgive the “easy” targets today. Yesterday I took a cheap shot at a post on the unique Parabiodox blog. I knew it was a bait post but I was bored and couldn’t pass up the chance to poke fun at what came across as a very self-important Theist post.
Parabiodox has responded to my comment and seems to damn me with faint praise (more of that later), but oddly seems to continue the “self important” tone I thought the original post had. Do Christians have a sense of humour or was he just all cut up over the death of Jerry Fallwell…(*) Anyway, trying to claw my way back to seriousness, in a nutshell, Parabiodox (paraphrasing the luminary Ayn Rand…) asked a question about which faith/belief system spends it’s time attacking others to hide the fact it has nothing to offer. It was fairly obvious this was a poor attempt to attack Atheism (agnosticism etc) and that is the answer the Theist wants to get.
The reality is far from the truth (for example, Atheism is not a faith nor is it a belief system) so, I pointed out that if you are not a follower of the Abrahamic myths, then they seem to spend a lot of time attacking others in an effort to mask the fact they offer nothing of value. The irony of the very question did not go unnoticed here… How does Parabiodox respond?
“There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody’s ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings — or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?” (From “The Moratorium on Brains,” Question and Answer Period.)
Now I wonder who she could be talking about ?
This is really a bit of a no-brainer and is really rhetorical but even so I can’t resist giving you a further clue.
What faith/belief system spends most of it’s time attacking other faiths and beliefs in an effort to mask the fact that it has nothing of substance to offer itself?
Now, personally I think I know where the dig is aimed, but the answer to the question is “Abrahamic Religions (Judaeo-Christianity and Islam)” surely?