Following

Discussion History Main / HollywoodAtheist

Go To

[007] Malchus Current Version

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

Also, why are you conflating the \\\'\\\'I Am Legend\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Grey\\\'\\\' examples with mine when I didn\\\'t include them in the list and it was suggested by another troper replying to my comment? Please don\\\'t put his words in my mouth.

Again, my issue is not with the \\\"Hollywood\\\" part of the name. Why do you keep bringing that up? It\\\'s makes it seem like you\\\'re ignoring my point entirely just to pursue your personal peeve. \\\'\\\'I don\\\'t give a damn what they call this trope\\\'\\\', and in fact a redirect of it is already StrawAtheist.

My problem with your position has always boiled down to your claim that this trope is uncommon in recent mainstream media. I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched. So why should we take your word--and your word alone--that this is uncommon in mainstream media when our experiences prove otherwise as backed by the examples I listed?

[006] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 04:02:34 AM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

And again, you miss the point entirely. \'\'As long as the character is explicitly an atheist and fits several of the features listed in the description, then he/she qualifies for this trope.\'\' Whether his cockiness is deserved or not, whether his skills are good or not, and whatever the cause of his arrogance, he still fits with this trope because he is an outspoken atheist and possess the following of the features discussed in the trope description:

to:

And again, you miss the point entirely. \\\'\\\'As long as the character is explicitly an atheist and fits several of the features listed in the description, then he/she qualifies for this trope.\\\'\\\' Whether his cockiness is deserved or not, whether his skills are good or not, and whatever the cause of his arrogance, House still fits with this trope because he is an outspoken atheist and possess the following of the features discussed in the trope description:

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

Again, my issue is not with the \\\"Hollywood\\\" part of the name. Why do you keep bringing that up? It\\\'s makes it seem like you\\\'re ignoring my point entirely just to pursue your personal peeve. \\\'\\\'I don\\\'t give a damn what they call this trope\\\'\\\', and in fact a redirect of it is already StrawAtheist.

My problem with your position has always boiled down to your claim that this trope is uncommon in recent mainstream media. I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched. So why should we take your word--and your word alone--that this is uncommon in mainstream media when our experiences prove otherwise as backed by the examples I listed?

[005] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 04:00:18 AM

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

Again, my issue is not with the \\\"Hollywood\\\" part of the name. Why do you keep bringing that up? It\\\'s makes it seem like you\\\'re ignoring my point entirely just to pursue your personal peeve. \\\'\\\'I don\\\'t give a damn what they call this trope\\\'\\\', and in fact a redirect of it is already StrawAtheist.

My problem with your position has always boiled down to your claim that this trope is uncommon in recent mainstream media. I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched. So why should we take your word--and your word alone--that this is uncommon in mainstream media when our experiences prove otherwise as backed by the examples I listed?

[004] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 03:58:40 AM

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

Again, my issue is not with the \\\"Hollywood\\\" part of the name. Why do you keep bringing that up? It\\\'s makes it seem like you\\\'re ignoring my point entirely just to pursue your personal peeve. \\\'\\\'I don\\\'t give a damn what they call this trope\\\'\\\', and in fact a redirect of it is already StrawAtheist.

My problem with you has always boiled down to your claim that this trope is uncommon in recent mainstream media. I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched. So why should we take your word--and your word alone--that this is uncommon in mainstream media when our experiences prove otherwise as backed by the examples I listed?

[003] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 03:58:00 AM

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

Again, my issue is not with the \\\"Hollywood\\\" part of the name. Why do you keep bringing that up? It\\\'s makes it seem like you\\\'re ignoring my point entirely just to pursue your personal peeve. \\\'\\\'I don\\\'t give a damn what they call this trope\\\'\\\', and in fact a redirect of it is already StrawAtheist.

My problem with you has always boiled down to your claim that this trope is uncommon in recent mainstream media. I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched. So why should we take your word--and your word alone--that this is uncommon in mainstream media when our experiences prove otherwise as backed by the examples I listed?

And, I\\\'m sorry, but

[002] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 03:49:35 AM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

* Atheists only seem to have arguments against their culture\'s predominant religion. There is never any evidence that they\'ve looked into non-mainstream religions for something they can find more plausible.
* Atheists are depressed, lonely, avoidant and often Nietzsche Wannabes.
* Atheists exist solely to mock religious people.
* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists only seem to have arguments against their culture\\\'s predominant religion. There is never any evidence that they\\\'ve looked into non-mainstream religions for something they can find more plausible. (Most of House\\\'s arguments are always about the Judeo-Christian God)
* Atheists are depressed, lonely, avoidant and often Nietzsche Wannabes. (Does House live a miserable and lonely life? Yes.)
* Atheists exist solely to mock religious people. (Every time House\\\'s atheism is brought up, it is always to mock religion in one way or another.)
* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents. (Smugly convinced of his intellectual superiority is a defining character trait of House, and as I said, whether it\\\'s \\\"justified\\\" or not doesn\\\'t matter. It\\\'s there, it counts. He has also been shown to be wrong several times due to his arrogance. And many of his more stubborn arguments with the religious were used to show that he is just as unbending in his beliefs as they are.)

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

And, again, I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched.

[001] Malchus

10th Nov '12 at 03:43:10 AM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

And again, you miss the point entirely. \'\'As long as the character fits several of the features listed in the description, then he/she qualifies for this trope. Whether his cockiness is deserved or not, whether his skills are good or not, and whatever the cause of his arrogance, he still fits with this trope because he is an outspoken atheist and possess the following of the features discussed in the trope description:

to:

And again, you miss the point entirely. \\\'\\\'As long as the character is explicitly an atheist and fits several of the features listed in the description, then he/she qualifies for this trope.\\\'\\\' Whether his cockiness is deserved or not, whether his skills are good or not, and whatever the cause of his arrogance, he still fits with this trope because he is an outspoken atheist and possess the following of the features discussed in the trope description:

Changed line(s) 6 from:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \

to:

* Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the \\\"truth\\\" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not so Different from their religious opponents.

Several of the episodes focusing on House\\\'s atheism have made use of those features I listed above. Thus, he qualifies as this trope. Why are you so insistent against that when it is spelled right out?

And, again, I listed several examples above already, which you admit to not knowing enough about to rebut. So how can you judge whether it\\\'s fairly common or uncommon when you admit that you have no knowledge of several of the examples I listed? That only means that it\\\'s uncommon \\\'\\\'only for the things you have watched,\\\'\\\' and saying that it\\\'s too uncommon for mainstream media \\\'\\\'in general\\\'\\\' is a faulty conclusion based on what you admit is a limited point of reference. Last time I checked, mainstream media is not limited only to what one person has watched.