Talk:Atheist thumper

What the fuck is this article? Taking over rationalwiki inch by inch?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.110.187.9 / talk / contribs 07:20, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I don't think Steven Jay Gould ever even MENTIONED religion in his books, did he? You might be thinking of Richard Dawkins. --Gulik 00:56, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Gawd, he forgot Bertrand Russell! One of the more famous atheist tub thumpers is there ever wuz! human be in 01:09, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * More famous ATTs to follow, as soon as I check my library! I may yet smear SJG, too.  We'll see. He was a bit of a, you know, "evolutionist", after all. human be in 01:17, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe we should split the orgs and the people, and alphabetize by last name... human be in 11:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)


 * see Terry Sanderson President UK national secular soc

http://www.secularism.org.uk/ RojerB-KtF! 14:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I substituted the text from the definition in a later use of the phrase for clarity, before it gets removed for its stupidity: "Anyone engaged in a public show of science (usually biological) or secular humanism long for the day when they can beat people about the head with their English translation of Chairman Mao's little Red Book." Everyone knows Marx was the atheist, so can we please have Das Kapital instead? human be in 23:34, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Chairman Mao was an atheist too, but it's a toss up. Also, I undid some of your verbosity.   23:38, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I removed the pointless political attacks by association. Left the definition and the examples list.
 * Doesn't seem quite fair since Thumper the rabbit remains.  23:47, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * As modified by you, isn't it? (ie, it's not the way I wrote it, but was it you who rewrote it?) Anyway, it's a "joke" that does not attack anyone by careless, or intentional, association.  At least it's at the end and not the beginning... human be in 23:53, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't care, but thought the Mao references were funny, too...not meant as an attack.  23:54, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Huxley
"(Thomas Huxley was not an Atheist Thomas Huxley was an Agnostic.)" comment left by an IP removing Huxley from the list. But, but, but, HG said he was a thumper! He is also known (in some circles?) as "Darwin's bulldog"! How much more evidence do you need that he was the nastiest sort of anti-christian, child-perverting, secular humanistic atheist rumper-pumper?! human be in 14:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * You left out "Communist". Totnesmartin 14:57, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Shit. I mean, shoot. human be in 15:03, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

PZ Myers is a big one too.--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 15:41, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, add him/her/it/shit then, and don't forget a quick line about why he/she/it/shit is such a nasty person. By the way, is it just me, or does everyone think of the hero's roommate Thumper from The Butterfly Effect when they see this file? human be in 18:51, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I am going to regret asking, but...
How exactly do we know that PZ Myers is the world's greatest lover? --JeevesMkII 17:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * And what exactly are "left-handed fruitbats"? -- 17:14, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Er...
 * Just me being silly, m'afraid. Move along, now. Nothing to see here... 17:17, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, anyone notice it's been exactly one year since the last talk comments here? We've been at this a while... PS, also, we are the number one Google hit for the phrase, not in quotes. (Of course, in quotes, there were about 8 obscure blogs using it back then...) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:29, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I noticed! :D I also found the mention of PZ Myers rather prophetic. 17:36, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes! I didn't even know who PZ Myers was a year ago! (not much into blogs = me, unless you count RW ;)) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:56, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * All I read was "August", so I assumed it was recent, at first. I couldn't work out why you didn't recognise the name! Complete cognitive collapse... 17:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

edit war over bias
I think my edits were perfectly reasonable. There is no reason people trying to make everybody into atheists are different than people trying to make everybody into Christians. Both sides are equally annoying.--. 12:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but judging by the actual edit, that wasn't the place to discuss it and a single sentence really didn't convey it right. It needs an entire section comparing and contrasting the ideas of pushing atheism and pushing religion. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>moral 13:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh... fine, but then you have to do the same on the bible thumper article--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 13:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily as the "bible thumper" idea came before the atheist equivalent. You have to therefore define atheist thumpers in terms of the religious counterparts the term is a response to. Otherwise it would be like going to each page on a specific religion and constantly be comparing it with atheism; both beside the point and incredibly wasteful. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>narchist 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning. What was wrong with my version (which was fairly similar to the original)?--. 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

suggestion for additonal content
I would recommend including this explanatory video by one J.P. Holding in this article, along with a link to the Horseshoe Theory article:

Skadooshbag (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)