Wednesday, May 16, 2012

More Stupidity from Hoffmann

R. Joseph Hoffmann, the world's most boring atheist, is at it again with a new post telling us why the New Atheists are just so stupid and everyone should really be listening to R. Joseph Hoffmann and the even-more-boring Jacques Berlinerblau.

The reason why we laugh at Hoffmann is not because he has anything challenging or thought-provoking to say, but because he is so shamelessly contentless in such a sneering and supercilious manner. He claims the New Atheists do nothing but "shouting at people", but gives no examples, all the while getting in a few shouts himself. (Atheists need to "learn table manners"; they don't have "savvy"; they are "historically [incompetent]".)

Of course the Gnus (and I mean Dawkins, Harris, Rosenhouse, Hitchens, etc.) don't shout, but write intelligently and calmly almost all of the time. And they're fun to read, unlike Hoffmann, who is best read late at night when having trouble sleeping.

He claims that "Americn [sic] secularism hasn’t had the savvy to know how to preach its gospel in a way that (really) ups the numbers". Yet all the polls show just the opposite: atheists' numbers are rising faster than almost every religion. (Facts are not Hoffmann's strong suit. Don't bother correcting him, because he likes to remove comments that are uncomplimentary.)

Hoffmann wonders why there is "profound stress and anxiety about religion in these movements". He could, you know, actually ask someone involved in the "movements" to tell him why. No, it's much for fun for a pundit-wannabee to throw out a bunch of made-up explanations as if they were facts.

I'd be happy to tell Hoffmann why there is "profound stress and anxiety about religion", but first he has to remove the fingers he has inserted so deep into his ear canals.


John said...

"Hoffmann wonders why there is "profound stress and anxiety about religion in these movements"."

Because people like R.Joseph Hoffman irritate us.

steph said...

Martin Luther, condemning Jeffrey's erroneous, dull, empty and slanderous misrepresentation of Hoffmann which Jeffrey is compelled to type bold fearing his own insignificance, slobbers, ‘He does nothing more than latch on to a small word and smear over with his spittle as he pleases, but meanwhile he does not take into account other texts which overthrow he who smear and spits, so that he is up-ended with all four limbs in the air. So here, after he has raved and smeared for a long time...' (Against the Heavenly Prophets)

Gingerbaker said...

Surprised he has time for this, as he promised a definitive horse whipping of mythicism weeks ago, and is overdue on that deadline.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Oh, dear, Steph, do you really not know what "bold" means?

steph said...

Poor Jeff - does wearing a superman suit make you think you're Superman? You are compelled to type in bold, in order to try and appear bold, when you're merely exposing your lack of sophistication and trivial inanity.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Thanks, Steph, for confirming that you don't know the meaning of the word "bold".

Now, are there any adults here who want to defend silly Hoffmann?

steph said...

So it doesn't mean courageous or daring as Shakepeare might have used it? You have a secret 'grown up' definition? Who is supercilious and sneering? My God, it's you. By the way I'm not 'defending' someone who is far too sophisticated and learned for your limited comprehensive skills. It just appears from your inaccurate post that you're all spittle and a bit of a dick.

steph said...

PS I'll forgive you for lacking the ability to understand analogy.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

You claim it's "inaccurate", but despite multiple incoherent comments you can't point to a single inaccuracy.

Still looking for the adults here who want to defend Hoffmann.

But I realize why it's more fun here than at Hoffmann's blog; he only published praise for himself.

steph said...

We laugh at you and we laugh with Professor Hoffmann. Your inaccuracy - scroll through his comments and you'll find plenty of irrelevant ad hominen attacks like you silly comment posted on Religiophobia. Do you find Martin Luther difficult to understand? Has any hope of lateral thinking never matured in your limited view of language and logic? Don't you understand that highlighting the silliness of your irrelevant remarks is not defending someone else who doesn't need defending? Can your post, lacking in substance or honest engagement, just makes you appear tragically jealous? Go out and enjoy the fresh air - you look like a bit of exercise would do you the world of good.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

I see you're still unable to list a single inaccuracy in my criticism, Steph.

Martin Luther, huh? One of your favorites? Tell me, how do you feel about this wonderful gem from Martin Luther: "I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule­­ if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves." (from The Jews and Their Lies)

And finally a little hint: submitting your comment twice in the middle of the night doesn't get it published any faster.

steph said...

I'll give you a little hint - the second comment I submitted wasn't identical to the first. Thank you for publishing the second. And you can't see your own inaccuracy I quite clearly pointed out? You claim he only publishes comments which praise him - some of the comments clearly displayed under previous posts demonstrate the contrary. You claim facts are not Hoffmann's strong suit. This is contrary to the fact. You recommend not bothering correcting him, because he likes to remove comments that are uncomplimentary. The evidence is blatantly visible in your own pathetic malicious nonsense which you left on his post 'Religiophobia'. The evidence is on threads of previous posts which reveal plenty of ad hominen directed at him in the same tone as yours with most generally quibbling about non existent error because they disagree. And more inaccuracy Jeff? Your post was pure ad hominen. You seem incapable of critical analysis and honest discussion. You're limited to a form of criticism which is identical to playground jealousy and name calling.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

some of the comments clearly displayed under previous posts demonstrate the contrary

He hasn't published many of my comments, as well as the comments of other people I know.

You claim facts are not Hoffmann's strong suit. This is contrary to the fact.

No, it's not. I pointed out a specific error - namely, that contrary to his claim, "atheists' numbers are rising faster than almost every religion".

Your post was pure ad hominen

You can hardly complain about that! Nearly everything you've said so far is a personal attack on me: "dull", "empty", "slobbering", "lack of sophistication and trivial inanity".

the second comment I submitted wasn't identical to the first

The first few lines seemed exactly the same (that's all I get in the preview). I apologize if I accidentally deleted some important content.

steph said...

Perhaps you haven't read the guidelines for comments and moderation. I know many bloggers who withhold comments that are vile and without content. I know other bloggers who withhold comments they disagree with.

The evidence you site for atheism growth is flawed and characteristic of such polls. Contradicting flawed polls is not making 'specific error'. Research on religious belief and identity provides evidence to the contrary of the poll results. A variety of non believers get pushed into the atheism category when they don't in reality qualify. But simplistic preference avoids complexity of reality and opts for a narrow view of language and logic, not to mention an agenda to make atheism appear greater. It's the difference between accute analysis of evidence by a historian, and simple formulas of a scientist.

And your attention to detail slips again. I said 'thank you' for publishing my second comment. So why apologise? The first comment contained a typo which I corrected in the second. You superciliously suggested I had posted an identical comment.

Your post was pure ad hominen and that is a fact. You asked for your innaccuracies and I gave you them while the vast proportion of your post was pure ad hominen. Fact. Complaining? No. You're whining and complaining about Hoffmann and I was commenting on that.

steph said...

see another typo - inaccuracies. Probably more but I won't bother correcting and reposting :-)

John said...

Steph: Are you really conflating typos with inaccurate claims?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

The evidence you site for atheism growth is flawed and characteristic of such polls.

It's "cite". No serious person can deny that atheism is growing in North America. Poll after poll says so, and the rapid rise in atheist groups is yet more proof.

Unknown said...

PLEASE delete this asshole Steph's garbage, Dr Shallit. It's YOUR blog. You have the ABSOLUTE right to do so.

If you feel the need for logical consistency with a certain axiom of "delete comments of those telling me what to do", then delete mine, too. I WON'T be offended or go off onto other blogs bashing you, etc. I won't take it personally.

On a slightly related note, I have often wondered how closely related the concept of:

" I believe: 'Everyone has the absolute right to say & think whatever they want', including the right to say & think: 'It is NOT the case that everyone has the absolute right to say & think whatever they want' "

is to the Russell paradox.

Person X asserting axiom A
and different person Y asserting not A is not (in general) a paradox. It COULD be a paradox if the axiom, A, refers back to X & Y in some way which leads to a contradiction.

I have long been interested in the formal logical modeling different belief systems (i.e. different axioms), but I still cannot do even elementary homework exercises (if I were taking a formal logic course) in the Zermelo Frankel axioms.

e.g. the Axiom of Replacement is just too tricky for me to memorize. When I do my computational differential equations & all that combinatorics that I love, I have NO IDEA how ZF axioms are related to what I do.