From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Like half of these examples aren't irony[edit]

Our list of examples contains very little irony (which isn't even ironic at this point... isn't that ironic?). Much of it is coincidence, a good chunk is actually hypocrisy (only some of which is ironic), and it's overall bad. I suggest it gets heavily shortened. Shadow of Lords talk 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would call a lot of the hypocritical things irony, but not everything on the page, not by a long shot. Here are what I think are good examples of irony:

  • Irony is that the drummer of ZZ Top, Frank Beard, is the only beardless member of the band.
  • Irony is the fact that the Bush administration patriotically took away our rights in the name of defending our rights. (although, YMMV on this one)
  • Irony is another conservative group that rants against raising the US debt limit defending itself when it enters financial trouble and takes out a line of credit.
  • Irony is when evangelical Protestant Americans oppose gay marriage as a means to defend marriage, yet seem to be oblivious to the fact that English-speaking Protestantism was founded by Henry VIII, who wanted to divorce his by-then-infertile wife and marry a much younger woman, whom he later had killed so he could (eventually) marry four more women.
  • Irony is when you text "I need to quit texting because I could die in a car accident," then drive your truck off a bridge.
  • Irony is when a motorcycle club goes on a protest ride against the law requiring them to wear helmets only to have one of the riders fall off his bike and die from an injury that would not have killed him if he were wearing a helmet
  • Irony is when a media anti-piracy group produces an anti-piracy PSA with a pirated music soundtrack.

And these are NOT good examples of irony:

  • Irony is when the fact that "Iron" is pronounced "I-ern," while the pronunciation for "Irony" is closer to they way "iron" is spelled.
  • Irony is that a military that costs six times more than its Chinese counterpart couldn't kill one frail, kidney-failing terrorist in a timeframe longer than WWI and WWII combined.
  • Irony is when the listeners of a well-known, overweight, Oxycontin-popping nutjob buy into the right-wing meme that Michelle Obama is fat and that her advocacy for better nutrition is bad for your health because...well, because the insane overweight opiate addict sez so.

The last example is just Limbaugh-bashing--which is fine, I guess; this is RationalWiki--but it isn't irony. Now, if he had given out nutrition advice of his own while decrying Michelle Obama's, then that would be irony. Chromanebula (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


Is there really a phenomenon that actually reading the Bible causes many Christians to become atheists, or is it just a lie made by the moonbat side of the New Atheist movement? Or maybe it is it half-true and half-exaggerated, or fully exaggerated? I'm pretty sure there are Christians who actually read the entire Bible and thought "Welp, God had to deal with a lot of insane people", then went on with being a Christian. --2601:199:4181:E00:DEE:6E0:5AA6:AF0B (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you've been taking this too seriously and have already put way too much effort into this and it reflects poorly on you--Hastur! (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
What, the bit was exaggerated? --2601:199:4181:E00:DEE:6E0:5AA6:AF0B (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I recognize that this is anecdotal, but I was raised Lutheran. I God and would pray during times of trouble. Then I did read the Bible when I was 16-17 and found that there was a lot of bullshit there. So in just over 10 years time, I drifted from habitual Christian through agnosticism into full blown atheism by the time I turned 30. And it all started with me reading the book of fiction that is called bible.
Again, anecdotal. And it's just my personal story of moving from religion to sanity.
And anyway, turning from Christianity to Atheism after reading the Bible is ironic however often that happens. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I lost faith in God by reading the flood myth. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I get it, but this is still RationalWiki, where religion-bashing comes before establishing the difference between fundamentalists and sane Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever. I'm agnostic and egalitarian, but still I doubt many people turn to atheism after actually reading the Bible, since there are many Christians who actually read the Bible and remained Christian (on an unrelated note, it wouldn't surprise me if there are Christians who deconverted and became pro-science atheists but still like VeggieTales). 2601:199:4181:E00:4930:A54D:DF75:B099 (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well I've never watched VeggieTales (probably because I'm not American), but I do still find Bible highly entertaining. Especially the old testament. I read bits of it whenever I have a taste for some particularly gory horror fiction. But just because something is entertaining doesn't mean it's not a bunch of nonsense. And people with the ability for critical thinking are going to realize that. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

bons additions[edit]

the first concerns skeptics and early support of New atheism and some criticisms that have been leveled. skeptics is a massively broad term, even when applied to scientific skepticism or to what can be referred to as the skeptic community. it includes those who support the theory evolution could be include as much flat earthers. there is no agreed consensus on what to be skeptical of, with many fringe views and divergence on the extent and form skepticism may take, and very often subjectively applied or dismissed. there are plenty who describe themelves as skeptics that would have no problem with those assigned to new atheism, and while those a who oppose to the things such ills where likely be disappointed the course new atheisms may have taken it would only be ironic if the direction went against what new atheism was originally intended to that is to actively promote atheism in opposition to theism. it would only have been ironic new atheists suddenly praising jehova/allah/buddha/the tooth fairy, and declared their works the inerrant word of god with unbelievers destined for damnation. a tad on the nose, but ironic. it is ironic as it serves as the antithesis of what was intended, by design or in effect. that new atheism became associated with what many - skeptic or otherwise - find unpalatable is merely unfortunate as they are things unrelated to the atheism, new or otherwise, or simply go to far. they may feel they were to hasty to support a movement they no longer approve of, but the original purpose is still fundamental to new atheism. racial profiling, torture, islamophobia are not antithetical to that purpose. if indeed criticism is even valid.

the second involves both claims of homophobic sentiment being validated by scripture and claims of the same biblical verses are reason enough to declare religion as evil when both claims rest on mistranslations of abusive sex invalidating both, might be ironic if not for what really this addition more accurately describes involves claiming the subjective interpretations of the bible by two opposing groups is moot because of the subjective interpretations of another party because of subjective interpretations of translations by a fourth group, disagreeing and agreeing with the subjective interpretations of both scripture and translations by multiple other groups. none of which is faintly ironic and neglects to mention all subjective interpretations are moot to all but those intent on insisting on the bible as the inerrant word of god when no one should be subject to laws or morality created with that as their ultimate underpinning.

both involve strawmen and assertions that are false or irrelevant supported by strawmen and assertions to claim outcomes though unintended or involve mistaken beliefs, do not involve expectations dashed in ways that would be opposite to what could be reasonably expected, nor claims made that are proven to be false with the exact opposite, or near enough, being true. ergo neither are ironic. and irony might be itself subjective, and i ramble.

and all of the above might be ironic as ironic or not, adding too this list of supposed ironies or simply swapping some out for others isnt needed by an unnecessary long list of examples in need of pruning, with many dubious items, when one or two should suffice. rationalwiki needs to learn lists of examples need not be exhaustive or need items continuously added. i looking at you Inverse_stopped_clock AMassiveGay (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not wrong about the lists, but unfortunately that's fighting windmills. If I remember, there were attempts to reduce Inverse_stopped_clock down to 5 examples, but eventually everyone wants their pet peeve to be included and no-one's got time and energy to police the examples ad-infinitum. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 09:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)