The media are lashing back. The post-convention media (with the exception of one article in the Australian) has been abysmally bad, relying on tried-and-true excuse-making from religious apologists. It would be nice if they actually had conversations with atheists rather than immediately running to the nearest cathedral for consolation, but I guess that’s what they have to do now. After all, the convention was an unqualified success, a real triumph for the atheist movement, and they just can’t have that.
Barney Zwartz is a concern troll. He’s a believer; he presumably thinks religion and god and all that crap have some value; so why is he trying to give us advice on how to make atheism more effective?
Here’s my advice. If atheists can reduce their contempt for believers and work harder for their positive goal — reducing the footprint of religion in society — they may begin to exert more of the influence they feel they deserve.
OK, Barney. Here’s my advice for you: put away the writing career, join a monastery, and pray, pray, pray. It will advance your cause!
Of course, why should a believer trust my advice on this issue? I want you to go away. It’s the same with Zwartz. Complain away, at least that’s being honest about your own opinions; but playing the game of offering grandfatherly advice to a movement you detest is insincere and obnoxious.
Oh, and what you consider unworthy doesn’t interest me much. Explain why.
Also unworthy were ABC science presenter Robyn Williams offering “a devastating argument against religion in two words: Senator Fielding”; former Hillsong member Tanya Levin: “I’m finally getting to hang out with the adults”; and Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.” (Wild applause after each.)
What was missing was any sign of self-deprecation. Atheism will be a mature movement in Australia when atheists can laugh not just at the religious, but at themselves.
For instance, you could try to defend Fielding — that would be interesting. Fielding is the fellow who believes the earth is 6000 years old, after all, because his religion tells him so. The religious should be embarrassed by him.
As for laughing at ourselves…we did. There was quite a bit of humor aimed at our own little group. It’s just that the wacky, goofy religious nuts are so much funnier. Religion will be a mature movement when it can stop providing so much juicy material for comedians, although, given that you’ve been struggling with that problem for a few millennia, I don’t offer much hope.
Speaking of jokes, here’s a punchline for you: Melanie Phillips. She’s the deranged religious nut who rants and raves about atheists being totalitarian fundamentalists, and who is now making a career out of her hatred of Richard Dawkins.
Just why is he so angry and why does he hate religion so much? After all, as many religious scientists can attest, science and religion are — contrary to his claim — not incompatible at all.
A clue lies in his insistence that a principal reason for believing that there could be no intelligence behind the origin of life is that the alternative — God — is unthinkable.
Melanie Phillips was not actually at the Global Atheist Convention. I specifically addressed her argument about compatibility from propinquity — it just doesn’t work, because it means that everything must be compatible with everything else in the most trivial way. I also have not heard Dawkins ever claim that God is unthinkable, or that there is no possibility of intelligence responsible for the origin of life — quite the contrary, these are possible alternatives which we simply reject because there is no evidence for them.
It’s always a bad sign when the only way you can make a point is by lying about what the other person said.
Phillips is always a source of amusement, though.
Through such hubristic overreach, Dawkins has opened himself up to attack from quarters that, unlike the theologians he routinely knocks around the park, he cannot so easily disdain.
Books taking his arguments apart on his own purported ground of scientific reason have been published by a growing number of eminent scientists and philosophers, including mathematicians David Berlinski and John Lennox, biochemist Alister McGrath, geneticist Francis Collins, and philosopher and recanting atheist Anthony Flew.
Uh, yes. We can easily disdain them. Berlinski, Lennox, and McGrath are not serious contributors to the debate; Berlinski is a popinjay and Lennox and McGrath are wacky theologians. Collins’ arguments for religion are fallacious and trivial, and Flew is in a sad state of senility.
Here’s the worst. ABC news spent half their brief coverage with shots of a communion ritual at a church, and got some smug idiot in a dog collar named Philip Freier to give his opinion of atheism, and got it all wrong.
Here’s the priest’s brainfart:
It will be interesting to me to see how something that is framed around a largely negative concept, atheism <self-satisfied smile>, is capable of developing a coherent position.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The central concept of modern atheism is the importance of evidence. We have seen the remarkable success of evidence-based reasoning, and have noticed that religion doesn’t seem to use it…that the only negative concept here is the fundamental premise of religion, faith. Evidence and reason are not negative concepts, except perhaps in the minds of faith-heads who have replaced them with a vacuum and gullibility.
We’ve also been waiting a long, long time for religion to develop a coherent position. Their failure so far suggests that they are incapable of doing so.
Oh well, you would hardly be happy if there weren’t a backlash.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Melanie P uses that angry word; I’ve had the same experience of being described as displaying anger when responding to a newspaper article online.
Why anger? I wasn’t angry then, I’m not angry now, nor is I suspect Dawkins angry. But it seems that only an emotional characterisation of atheism will do.
Mystified….
Andrew Bolt has been frothing off the last few days as well:
From everything I’ve read it sounds like it was a valuable conference all around.
Just why is he so angry and why does he hate religion so much? After all, as many religious scientists can attest, science and religion are — contrary to his claim — not incompatible at all.
Melanie Phillips clearly doesn’t know the first thing of what she’s talking about. Dawkins has been considerate and cordial to individual creationists (just consider his interview with Ted Haggard). What he doesn’t tolerate are the ideas that people refuse to interrogate. There’s an enormous difference between criticizing an individual and criticizing their ideas. It’s something that Phillips should consider in her own approach.
alextangent @2, disputatious disagreement is often claimed by the faithful (and by faitheists) to be based on anger — what other reason could there be for it? ;)
The fun thing about the ABC is that it is, of course, a very broad based organisation.
After all, one of your co presenters from the convention – Philip Adams – works for the ABC (ABC radio anyway).
It’s deja vu all over again.
The media coverage of the GAC that I have seen has been appalling. Disappointing, but not suprising. Even the supposedly supportive Rachel Holkner, writing in today’s Guardian couldn’t wait to end her article with these weasel words ~
…and then there are the readers’ comments …. /multiple headdesks/
A faitheist. What a surprise.
A reputation like what? We’re not supposed to tell the truth now?
*headdesk* barely begins to cover it.
Our media is getting worse and worse… we get stories about Mary appearing on train platforms and fence posts, weeks of Mackillop nonsense, World Youth Day idiocy… and all of the coverage is apparently genuine. It’s just so un-Austrayan.
PZ you should fire this off to the Australian / Age / SMH and see if they’ll publish. If that doesn’t work… maybe try and get on A Current Affair. Or Home and Away. I’d love to see you fight Alf!
Also… have people been calling you “P Zed”?
That post inspired me to have a look at Melanie Phillips’ wikipedia article. How does someone manage to be so wrong about so much?! It’s almost as if she’s been going out of her way to find scientific and other positions to misunderstand and disagree with.
I’ve never liked the woman, but I didn’t realize she was that bad!
//But I’m certain both the Pope and Fielding would feel their Christian faith prevented them from vilifying Dawkins as his fellow atheists freely vilified them.//
Awwwww…those bloody atheists! They’re so mean! The Pope(tm) isn’t mean because he’s a cristian so there!
…of course he is directly responsible for the pain and suffering of millions of people because he lies to them about condoms promoting the spread of AIDS
…and issues orders to protect his priests who have raped and abused children under their care
…and threatens those same children into silence about their abuse….
So, yeah sure, he’s pure evil. But at least he’s not a big meanie!
It still boggles my mind that people take arguments like this seriously…
I think all the journo’s up the front must have had a different speaker balance to what us non-journo’s could hear at the back – I’d say that there was hardly “wild applause” after most of the random insulting religion attacking statements unless, and this is the pretty big caveat … it was a joke. Heaven forbid a group of like-minded people get together and laugh at things we find funny. Oh no!
I’m also currently reading my (signed!) copy of Tanya Levin’s “People in Glass Houses” book and it seems to me that she’s completely licensed to speak of the detriments of Hillsong.
Funny also that no one’s accusing Taslima Nasrin of irrational hatred of religion and all things religious and of being disrespectful.
Ms. Phillips doesn’t get that it’s not that God is unthinkable, merely that there is no convincing evidence he exists, and there certainly is no convincing evidence any specifically described God exists. Nor does it follow that if such a being does exist he/she/it/they wish to be worshipped or even care what individual inhabitants of this planet are doing.
So does Robyn Williams.
I would love to see you get a TV appearance while you’re down here, PZ; but sadly, I fear how the media would butcher your interview. I wouldn’t expect much chance to say anything meaningful, and I’m sure they’d follow up with talking points from a religious representative.
Of course more likely, as has already been seen, they’d just skip talking to you or any other atheists and go straight to the church instead.
iamtheonlyjosie wrote:
But if they did they’d have to acknowledge her existence and the reality of how doing nothing more than asking questions of religion has resulted in her banishment, exile and constant fear for her safety at those wanting to do their god’s will.
Or – short version – it’s hard to paint atheists as extremists when you have to admit what real extremists do.
It’s projection. She feels uncontrollable anger, and doesn’t really know why, so rather than address her own anger, she projects it on others.
To Ms Phillips: We’re not angry. Just disappointed. You had an opportunity to really address those who you disagree with and learn what they really believe, but instead you chose to retreat into your prejudices and project your emotions onto others.
Nor are they suggesting that Lyn Allison was incorrect to point out that God always seems to be a bloke, or explaining how religion is required for morality (contra Peter Singer).
Instead they cherry-pick and distort a few choice phrases to fit the frame they have already decided on for the story. Fucking confirmation bias.
Stir up the ant nest!
I can’t help it; seeing religion getting disrespected, and watching the horrified gasps of astonishment that result when centuries of dogma and superstition are questioned, puts a smile on my face.
What they want to hear, is their version of a “positive” message: the problem isn’t faith, it’s when religion gets too aggressive. The issue isn’t whether God exists, it’s whether we can work together for common cause. The difficulty isn’t with superstition and irrationality being held up as virtues, it’s with everyone learning to respect each other. Change the subject from God. And then we’ll like you.
It’s been done. It’s being done. And it really doesn’t fix everything. Or anything, much. Because as long as they can comfortably assume that belief in belief is just as important as belief in God — and that belief in God is fundamental to being human — atheists will be seen as eccentric at best, and dangerous at worst.
did father freier actually say “some say that Christianity AND ITS FREEDOMS should be limited?” (emphasis mine).
What I don’t think Christians and religion as a whole realize is that we don’t want to do what they want to do, which is make everyone believe what we believe, have the same ideological positions, etc. by shutting down viewpoints that oppose our own. Nobody is saying you can’t go to mass and eat your little communion cracker and believe it turns into jesus in your tummie, right there next to your flintstones gummy. That is your freedom. We think you have every right to do it.
But here’s the rub: We have every right to think that it’s a foolish, pointless belief with no evidence to back it up, and to say so in public. You, in turn, can denounce us. It’s how the process works. Us pointing out the logical shortfalls in your argument is not the same as us limiting your freedoms, whereareas your anti-blasphemy laws actually are limiting ours. It’s the classic example of the most privileged group trying to act like the most persecuted.
Why does this always seem like the same article over and over again?
Atheists: We believe religion is detrimental to both society as a whole and to an individual’s growth and understanding.
Christians: Why do you have to be so mean! Atheists are just a bunch of meanies!
The Media: Up Next, why are Atheists so fucking mean?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sastra:
That right there is the core of the matter; that belief fuels fear and the desire to quash atheists being outspoken.
Australians, I’m curious. We’ve all seen that you have your share of god-botherers in your country, and they’ve come out of the woodworks recently. But by most measures, it does seem the US is far more seriously god-soaked when it comes to our politics, and the number of our citizens who profess ridiculous beliefs.
If that’s the case, then why is it that the media coverage in Australia of an atheist event is no different at all from the snide, intellectually dishonest, unfair, and petulant way the US media treats atheists? I mean, if Australia is less fundie-crazy by several measures, why does the media coverage not track with that? From reading the media accounts of the convention, one would just assume this was the first time anyone in Australia had heard of the concept of not believing in God.
I’m sincerely, truly baffled. Can anyone shed light on this?
The religious seem to miss the days when they could just kill or bash uppity atheists. As a result they’re frustrated by having their beliefs ridiculed; when combined with the impotence of not being able to treat us like they could in the ‘good old days’ it means they can’t think clearly – well, even less clearly than they do on their good days; obviously, if they could think clearly they wouldn’t be religious.
I don’t want to stop people believing what they believe; I just want them to a) stop forcing those beliefs – in the form of public policy – on those who don’t share those beliefs and b) stop pretending there’s any intellectual reason for holding them and admit they’ve got no argument other than ‘I feel that that [insert religion here] is true’.
You know what would reduce my contempt for believers? If they stopped believing in a contemptible manner.
Believers think believing in something not supported by evidence is laudable. How could anyone have anything but contempt for that?
“Just why is he so angry and why does he hate religion so much? ”
To quote Walter Sobchak: “I’m calm. Calmer than you.”
I was heartened by the piece in the Australian; good, even-handed coverage overall. The huge response of faitheists and the media in general is frustrating though.
A friend of mine accused me of being a Fundamentalist Atheist on the bus the morning I got home from Melbourne. First human being outside home I had interacted with. You bet I was missing the convention pretty fast.
* My first time commenting on Pharyngula! I was lucky enough to meet PZ at the convention, though.
Oppressors will complain that you are too loud and obnoxious but they only want you to be quiet so that it’s easier to ignore you.
detrange:
Wow, that’s a helluva greeting. And people wonder why atheists get all happy about meetings, conventions and having online spaces.
Also… have people been calling you “P Zed”?
…farfennoogle, I’ve always thought it that way.
“P Zee” is now making me uncomfortable. Stupid ‘muricans!
DamDarn good question. I can’t figure it out either.Perhaps it’s partly because the religious remain strong political lobbyists, and carry disproportionate weight in politics (and by extension, media).
Perhaps, even though most Australians aren’t strongly religious, many are still loosely affiliated with church groups; and are still willing to go to bat for them should they come under fire, even in broad terms.
Perhaps the public still associates religion with morality, and the media aren’t willing to appear “immoral” by attacking religion.
Probably a bit of all of the above, and lots more besides.
Josh, OSG #25
Remember, a chunk of our mainstream media is owned by the same people that own yours – so they’re not going to be that different. They need to sell newspapers and advertising space (and/or increase reader-, viewer- and listener-ship) so they manufacture controversy; the old-fashioned ‘beat-up’.
Part of it is, I think, more about our culturally apathy toward showing passion for anything other than sport, combined with the traditional deference for religious views, since they’re (falsely) perceived by most Australians as being harmless.
What it has shown, though, is the underlying reasons why we had to have a convention – and perhaps why we need to keep having them and keep getting people to think about the reasons atheists and/or secularists feel they need to.
One of the articles described that atheists at the convention as “militant”. Were any of the atheists at the convention carrying firearms? Were any advocating violence?
If just going to a convention makes you a militant, then the Jaycees are the most militant people around.
PZ: you said “We can easily disdain them. Berlinski, Lennox, and McGrath are not serious contributors to the debate; Berlinski is a popinjay and Lennox and McGrath are wacky theologians. Collins’ arguments for religion are fallacious and trivial, and Flew is in a sad state of senility.”
Now, I’m with you, but these names mean nothing to me so I read ad hominem against them from you, not exactly a rebuttal. So where would I go to see if I agree with you on dismissing their contributions because of their content, not because of your opinion of the authors? Or where would I find supporting evidence for your opinion?
I’ll be Googling while I wait …
@Kagato and Wowbagger – thanks for giving me some reasons to chew over. Particularly:
That’s particularly helpful. I’m ignorant of Aussie culture, and wouldn’t know anything about the level of apathy or fervor or deference regarding religious views.
Am I mistaken, or was this the biggest atheist convention held anywhere, ever? Regardless of the ginned-up drubbing from the papers, it looks like an unqualified success.
graygaffer, there’s a nifty search box on the upper left – try using it.
To Josh (#25)
It’s weird. As a people, we love taking the piss, and we love being more than slightly anti-authoritarian. Combine those two and you’d think we’d be less religious than we seem to be.
Our media really is going downhill fast… witness the recent coverage of Michael Clarke and Lara Bingle (don’t ask). I don’t know why the media is apparently so religious… although, remember that Rupert Murdoch is Australian.
When the whole Mary Mackillop thing was going on recently (and it’ll start up again once she is actually cannonised, which unfortunately does not mean shooting her remains out of a cannon), I was yearning for an article, just one, to tell it like it is: “Aging foreign leader credits dead Aussie with unexplained cancer cure”.
Is this the first time you’ve read a blog, or the first time you’ve read this one? Hint: authors don’t normally give hotlinked footnotes to all past posting on topics that are common knowledge among their audience.
Who in sam hell do you think you are? Did you mistake PZ for a reference librarian under contract to you?
Google yourself a big can of STFU. And, have a nice day!
graygaffer @36,
Were you to put those names in the search box in the upper left pane of this page, you’d find a number of posts featuring them.
Bovine feces! Andrew Bolt is preaching from his rectum. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor says atheists aren’t fully human. His “Christian faith” didn’t prevent him from calling us untermenschen.
Berlinski. Fellow of the ID here in Seattle. ’nuff said. Read a bit of his stuff.
I see I’ll have to say I grew up on Marmite. What do you have against it’s Australian sibling, V******e?
John, I pointed out the same thing; apparently graygaffer isn’t too good at looking a page over.
“Also… have people been calling you “P Zed”?”
What else would you call him?
Have you bothered to look at anything here? See under the comment box, click link.
As a first approximation, take the exact opposite of British culture.
(What’s that? A negative philosophy? How on earth can we develop a coherent culture?)
@Wowbagger
Yes! I had meant to mention that as well… we tend to put up with a lot of crap because we can’t be bothered getting up from the cricket… haha. But seriously… it’s true.
PZed, PZee, same person. Depends on what you call Z. Zee or Zed. The regulars, on both sides of the language divide, understand the situation.
Josh, stfu yourself. I did not recognize the names, I do not expect to see PZ name-calling, I thought we were above that. Name-calling is what we come down on those other folks for. Evidence-based reasoning does not rely on name calling. “popinjay” needs evidence. So I found it, but I would rather have seen the rebuttal attributed to Creationist philosophy (included by reference because I do expect readers of PZ to be familiar with the concept) rather than personality idiosyncrasies (because I do not expect all the proponents to be familiar).
Besides, who appointed you the guardian of PZ’s peace of mind or of the content of the comments here? I was not asking the group, I was asking PZ.
Caine, d’oh.
—
graygaffer,
As Caine alluded to, PZ recently posted video of him enjoying (!) some on a cracker.
As to what he has against it, I suspect not much (beyond bemusement).
The point? Something to do with the silliness and arbitrariness of banning specific words, I suspect.
#49 – “The regulars, on both sides of the language divide, understand the situation.”
Ahh… but how to handle the “Now I know my ABC” song?
Caine: “Have you bothered to look at anything here? See under the comment box, click link.”
What link? I see the word, I see no link, clicking there gives me nothing. The “euphemism week” link leads to a page of comments using the word to test the filter, no explanation of why v******e is forbidden. Or even relevant, except I guess its been on his hotel breakfast tables.
Not that I was serious, just wondered why a childhood favorite was suddenly a euphemism for something.
PZ is referring to them by less-than-flattering – but in no way inaccurate – terms. How is that ‘name-calling’? If someone is a fool, calling them a fool is the truth, no matter how insulted the fool might be to have his or her foolishness pointed out.
No, we come down on them because they’re ignorant, lying or intellectually dishonest. Name-calling really isn’t that big a deal compared to that.
But have no doubt we – and most likely PZ as well – are noting your concern.
I believe he said it gave the Jebus cracker a bit of flavor. What flavor, I don’t think he said. Just a word to amuse himself by banning it.
graygaffer,
When you post here, anyone is free to respond.
You want to ask PZ personally/privately? There’s a ‘contact’ link on the top bar of this page.
I always like to remember that when I hear the “how can you build a movement around the rejection of something” cries.
Berlinski interviews self
Think again. This isn’t the garden club, and there are no lace doilies on the furniture.
No, it isn’t. We come down on them for a lot of things, but name-calling isn’t one of them.
My coprocranial friend, I do believe you have the wrong blog. What “we” (and who is this “we, of whom you speak?) come down on people for is bad argumentation, intellectual dishonesty, and an obsession with tone. Not for Bad Words.
What part of “Official SpokesGay” is unclear to you?
graygaffer, your concern is noted. Now please fornicate yourself.
graygaffer:
Oh, Great Atheismo! Try reading. That link leads you to this specific post by PZ:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/sunday_sacrilege_magic_words.php
All that text on top of the comments? Gee, that would be PZ’s post, explaining the reason for euphemism week.
It’s not effing name calling; those people have been the subject of numerous posts. You could have easily found that out by placing said names in the gorram Pharyngula search box. How anything appears to you does not make it so.
You comment here, there’s a good chance people will comment back. If you say something stupid, there’s an excellent chance people will comment back. You’re saying a lot of stupid. You want to talk directly to PZ? Email him. And good luck with that.
The best analogy I’ve come up with: peace conferences are about rejecting war, involving people who don’t ‘believe in’ war; an atheism conference is much the same thing.
Vegemite sucks!!!
Fuck Euphemism Week!
Josh, OSG:
I’m happy to be just one of the Tentacle Guards. ;D
Hey everybody, thought people may like this video clip from the show “Dinosaurs!” about “potato-ism”
Apt, and to the point, Wowbagger. It’s desperately depressing that you actually have to come up with analogies for something perfectly obvious, just to break through the Automated Brain Shutdown Sequence that happens when the topic is religion.
@tfoss @58, yours is good too.
Caine,
I note that PZ’s I get email posts are already up to #53.
“Good luck” with that, indeed! :)
In what world is saying “so and so is a fool” not name-calling? Or ad-hominem? Calling somebody a name as a reason to reject his opinions is OK here? If so, what claim have we left for being evidence-based?
re Berlinski, I would have said “Berlinski is a self-professed ID crank”, which he is (in his own words, as I quickly discovered), as a reason to dismiss his opinions here. Indeed, I do say it. That he is also a self-professed agnostic suggests to me he does not know what he is saying, which perhaps bolsters the unreliability of anything else he says. But “popinjay” says absolutely nothing about why we should ignore the guy. So he’s vain? so what? so are many of our side. It’s a human failing completely independent of philosophy, intelligence, specialty, or the ability to think in straight lines.
Re: eating stuff on a cracker, no I did not watch that clip. I read the opinions, skip the fluff, and it was not on this post so why should I have seen it here?
V******e: I too have my silly moments. I just had to use a synonym for the forbidden word. Now I have to add: pecker twat cursed shag who? nutcase and dreck. Just because.
Caine, Evil Flower:
If your superpowers include morphing into a poisonous plant, you could do a nifty symbiosis-type thing and become a poison tentacle.
John, 53? I hadn’t noticed, I’m generally much too amused (and often appalled) by the content. That’s a bundle.
Josh, OSG:
Ooooh, I like. That’s very…me. :D
“Rely on”?
The content of a message doesn’t depend on its tone. Calling a spade a spade therefore doesn’t do any harm. There is no “above” or “below”.
The comments come in so fast that PZ doesn’t have time to read them all. And, as has been pointed out, you wrote a blog comment, not an e-mail.
<headdesk>
Saying “so-and-so is a fool, and therefore whatever they say is wrong” would be an ad-hominem argument. Saying “what so-and-so says is wrong, and therefore they’re a fool” is not, and neither is saying “so-and-so is a fool”.
Hey faecal material for brains, do you even know what an ad hominem (note the lack of hypen) is? Here’s a fornicating clue. If I say “You’re wrong because you’re an idiot” then that’s ad hominem. If I say “You’re wrong because of fact A, you idiot” then it’s not ad hominem.
#71
OK. I’ve been trying to tease you into cracking a smile and realize that you’re being all sniffy for no good reason. Clearly it’s not working. Ahem. .
Jesus H. Christ Tomatoes in a Sidecar, would you pull that dessicated corncob out of your backside (making sure to rub the taint) and get off it? Srsly, you’re being super annoying.
No one here, not PZ or commenters, ever said calling someone a name was a reason to reject his arguments. You’re making up strawmen. I’m having a hard time believing you really have ever read this blog before, because all those people PZ “called names?” Their ideas have been thoroughly dissected here multiple times. Just because you don’t know that (or can’t be bothered to look), and just because you have been sitting on a dry husk that’s irritated your hiney doesn’t mean PZ or anyone else has to dance to your tune.
gray gaffe:
I’m seeing zero comprehension ability on your part. You don’t seem familiar with Pharyngula at all; you aren’t willing to do a little investigating and reading. What you are willing to do is breeze in here and start castigating and lecturing. Tell ya what, go pound a pineapple.
Er, in this world – if that person is a fool. It’s an accurate description – like ‘tall’, or ‘old’, or ‘short’ or ‘fat’ or ‘ugly’ or ignorant’. True, some of these are insulting, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t also true. And one can stop being a fool at any time – or, at the very least, stop engaging in the behaviour that demonstrates foolishness. Then no-one would call them fools.
Wrong again. The ‘arguments’ presented by these fools have been dismissed; calling them fools is therefore not an ad hominem but an insult. Not the same thing.
Really, you’re arguing your point from ignorance of the history of the debates on the issue. Perhaps you should remedy that before informing us of your concerns.
In a defence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – they have an explicit requirement of being representative (which isn’t the same as balanced). As such, you will see views that are representative of segments of the population. And yes, the believers out there think that atheists are nuts.
However, this role of the ABC is not extended to their science and education roles – where excellent presenters such as Phillip Adams and Robyn Williams shine. While you won’t see these people attacking religion, you won’t see them defending it either. People like these provide excellent coverage on the ABC.
The ABC also had an excellent review of modern atheism a few months ago on Compass – a religious review program that examines modern religions in depth and critically (albeit without hostility). Compass probably draws more complaints than any other show on the ABC since the Chaser left, mostly because it doesn’t lie about the religions it covers.
Now, the nutjobs in the Australian and other news media in Australia – well, they’re in the business of selling, I guess.
How can atheism have a central concept of anything other than that there are no gods? The fact that there are many atheists demanding evidence seems to be coming more out of the notion of empiricism than being part of being an atheist. It may be reasonable for an atheist to demand evidence and dismiss the notion of gods on the lack thereof, but it’s not central to atheism – just a sign of the times.
To illustrate this further, conversely the number 1 reason why people believe in God seems to be the teleological argument. That science can explain the apparent design really speaks against the ever-emerging gap theology.
it’s not an ad hominem; “Berlinski is a popinjay” is not a premise, it’s a conclusion. and you’re not entitled to be linked to all the threads full of evidence, when the blog can be easily searched for it.
For a certain person with low comprehension levels:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection
ad hominem: An ad hominem argument attacks the messenger, not the message itself.
Example: “The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message [about creationism] because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.”[2] This doesn’t say anything about the argument of creationism, but rather the scientists.
Actually, I’ve got to correct myself; I wrote:
I misused the term ‘accurate’, since most of these terms are subjective rather than objective – and tend to be used as insults.
The exception, of course, is ‘ignorant’, which is demonstrable – though it can also be relative; for example, I’m certainly far more ignorant of biology than most of the posters here – and having that pointed out certainly isn’t insulting (at least to me).
Aawwww.
Most of my favorite words are banned. :(
Galactus35 | March 16, 2010 7:09 PM:
Tired of it already? Look on the bright side. If all goes well, we’ll only have to hear this garbage for about another 30 years or so.
Fixed that for ya. Because we’ve all seen how well the “just play nice and they’ll listen to us” approach works.
Atheists are nastier to Christians than vice versa? Someone lives in Bizarro World, I see.
Barney has got a point. Atheists can’t seem to laugh at themselves. But again theists do because they are filled with doubt and unsure of themselves. Atheists maybe have no doubts at all. It’s easy to poke fun at others and atheist humor revels in this. How would you laugh at yourselves? Dawkins is really serious, when he talks of the great problems of our time, the environment, ignorance, corporatism, poverty, you can almost see him cry.
Re WowbaggerOM @65…EXCELLENT!
jbeck:
Really.
Nay — I very much doubt you believe that, though you use it rhetorically.
Yeah, all the baby-eating references etc. are no joke! Dead serious, we are.
That would be because these are neither funny nor jokes.
Really? That’s how you see it?
Some of the most self-assured people I know are theists. They are so certain that their god is the correct god, out of the myriad gods man has invented. It allows them to deny equal rights to homosexuals. It allows them to fight against teaching actual science in the science classroom. And so on.
On the other hand, most atheists I know admit that god might exist. (I don’t; I’m fairly sure god can’t exist, due to the various problems of the existence of a non-natural being.) Also, those who practice science (the practical application of the epistemology of the same name) routinely attach probability to pretty much everything. In fact, Karl Popper essentially showed that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. We can only have relative certainty.
This doesn’t mean we can’t know things, of course. Certain elements of our ontology approach 99.9999999% certainty. (Things like thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion, and evolution, for instance.) But it does mean that atheists who depend on science for their knowledge are rarely certain, in the absolute way a theist can be certain.
Theists have the absolute answer to everything: god did it. This brooks no doubt.
So I’m not sure you have it the right way ’round. In fact, it seems you have it all Wonka. “Scratch that. Reverse it.”
nigelTheBold, *applause* Well said.
nigelTheBold wrote:
Well, to be perfectly up front, I’m about as sure as I can be that some gods don’t exist – the Christian one in particular; I’m as sure of this as I am the sun will rise tomorrow.
Does that make sunrisists ‘self-assured’? I guess, but that means that if there isn’t anything you have some doubt about then there’s something wrong with you – which is, to put it bluntly, moronic.
But that another kind of god could exist is something I consider a possibility – albeit a very, very slight one. But the only kind of god that could exist is of the deist variety; i.e. if it does exist, it really couldn’t care less whether or not we believe in it or not.
I think I have to agree with some of the Youtube commenters (gasp!) and express by disbelief that the episode was ever allowed to air in the US.
It wasn’t exactly subtle as allegories go. (Bit of a hallmark of the scripts, from memory…)
Dinosaurs! may not have been the best written show on television, but it was definitely unique in several ways (especially the puppetry & costumes). I don’t think there’s really been anything like it since.
There’s been more concern trolling, this time from Tracey Spicer. It’s painful.
http://tinyurl.com/yfaqbok
The reaction, from what I recall, is some people laughing in a “I can’t believe he said that” sort of way, while some others clapped. One person sitting near me said “that’s a bit harsh”. There wasn’t wild applause.
Another article stated that Dawkins received a huge standing ovation both before and after his speech. Some people stood for him, but the only true standing ovation was for Taslima Nasrin.
I find the media response typical and thus heartening. Basically, this is a familiar response, known by every minority and progressive group known to man. The media downplays the speakers, seeks out balance from the more privileged side who wants to see them die, focuses on whatever panel is the most inflammatory sounding, and plays up stereotypical expectations and cherry-picked quotes to make them sound like whatever mean old people they want.
It’s a very old, very consistent thing. Feminist conferences have always gotten this treatment (here’s a bunch of humorless man-haters), black community conferences have always gotten this treatment (listen to how harsh and angry these people are), gay conferences have always gotten this treatment (look how weird they are, let’s take a bunch of pictures of drag queens), protest marches have always gotten this treatment (let’s make fun of the puppet and the guy with the Free Mumia sign and use them to write off the march as a whole), etc…
But the thing is, is that all of these movements have faced decades of openly hostile media, deliberate attempts to shut down the effectiveness of the conference and attempt to prevent its positive results from reaching an easy audience (unlike those in the privileged camps who always get a red carpet treatment to their views and get problematic aspects explained away or deliberate cut out). This is common place, universal to the similar struggles done by any minority movement.
And well, every minority progressive movement has won. Piece by piece, victory by victory until the media has to start re-editing its news reels to cut out their commentary at the time so they can pretend like they were on the right side of history the whole time.
And the fact that they’re laying it on this thick, that says that the atheist movement is doing really well. It means that for the first time, theists are feeling not just “threatened” as in how dare this impudent wretch, but genuinely honestly threatened as in religion may stop being the get out of jail free card it is today threatened.
And looking at the massive secularism spreading throughout the non-US first-world, I can see why.
For a progressive movement, scaring the media is always a good sign. It means they’re taking you seriously enough to start seeing you as a threat, as a genuine agent of genuine change. This is the proof that the conference was very productive. They’re not joking about you like you were a Furry Con, they’re scared.
Cerberus,
Yes, the ‘new atheism’.
Cerberus, you’re exactly right, and thank you for reminding us that the same crap has always happened whenever any marginalized group finally speaks up. I went through the same thing in the earlier days of the gay rights movement; this is just a carbon-copy replay.
Outspoken atheists – don’t back down. The fact that the religious, or the milquetoast public, is bleating, screaming, and exaggerating about how nasty we are is perfectly normal. It means we’re effectively questioning the pedestal that religious belief enjoys, and cutting it down to size (the same size, no more, no less that any public claim should enjoy).
It doesn’t matter how “nice” you are, nevermind what Kirsh-a-Kwok-a-Nooney say. Even the most timid, “respectful”, tentative questioning of religious claims will provoke hysterical overreaction. This too, will pass. We just have to get society past the toddler temper tantrum stage.
I love the blockhead at the ending saying that atheism is “naught but the latest golden calf.” Really, St. Monkey? That’s your jab? Ooh! Consider us stung, sir. Your wit is certainly beyond compare or contradiction.
Apart from the bit where we’re not worshiping anything at all, that is.
MikeTheInfidel,
Yup, the concept of not needing anything to worship is apparently alien to a religious mindset.
I just wanted to note that I have seen similar discussions of feelings of anger and frustration at being told to sit down and shut up, and stop making people THINK all the time, and gosh aren’t you strident and rude, at feminist discussion websites.
Do you see how the status quo is defended by unwritten, almost unconscious, factors in the media and society?
I’m not sure where he was sitting, but from my vantage point such a comment got a much more negative reception from the crowd than when PZ talked glibly about squishing the insides out of Zebrafish. Wild applause is a very misleading way to phrase it.
Hahaha, Cerberus got in before me with the parallels.
Now be silent and don’t question things! Angry mean divisive over-thinking people!
Keep a civil tongue in your head!
Phasic wrote:
Go to the back of the bus! Be thankful we aren’t exercising our God-given right to kill you for not agreeing with us!
Although I’m not wanting to appropriate things too much. Atheism is not publicly visible in the same way that being non-white or female is.
But that feeling that you can’t possibly win in such a discourse is familiar.
For example: Whatever approach we take, the media will have some dismissive cliche ready. We will either be too angry, or too academic. Too disrespectful, or too wishy-washy. A danger to society, or silly and not even worth considering.
Can’t win.
Hi Josh,
Re: media coverage. One thing to bear in mind is the fact that (in newspapers at least) atheism is almost always covered by the reporters who cover the religion beat. Funnily enough, religion reporters tend to be rather religious.
Cerberus @97 summed up the more general news-sausage-stuffing process wonderfully in his/her first paragraph.
The Age/Sydney Morning Herald/National Times sites have a blog called Godless Gross written by a self-described “soft-c*ck” atheist named Dick Gross. Sadly, though, Gross seems to spend most of his time talking about how wonderful religion is and how atheism/secular humanism has nothing to offer. I stopped reading it ages ago.
Australia is far less religious than the US, which is a wonderful thing. The medieval-minded Catholic Cardinal George Pell is often found ranting in the media about gay marriage and abortion. A few years ago as the New South Wales state parliament was preparing to vote on some stem-cell thing he threatened Catholic MPs with unspecified “consequences” within the church if they voted for it. I don’t know how they voted, but the bill got through OK.
Churches/mosques/temples in the state of Victoria (and probably other states) have special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that allow them to refuse to employ gays, single mothers, people of other religions or none, and so on. And, of course, we don’t have gay marriage yet.
Tony Abbott, the right-wing opposition leader who wants to be prime minister by the end of the year, is or was a member of Opus Dei. As health minister under the previous government he overruled health department advice and banned RU486. He also funded anti-abortion pregnancy counselling centres that would not refer women to abortion doctors or counsellors.
Politicians here seem strangely enamoured of the Exclusive Brethren, a Christian cult that forbids its members from voting (in defiance of Australia’s compulsory voting laws). They always seem to get top-level sit-downs and I have no idea why.
We also have the odd crackpot, like Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries, who says that the bushfires that killed 173 people here last year was God’s punishment on the state of Victoria for decriminalising abortion.
All in all, I’d give Australia a B to a B+, but there is still plenty of room for improvement.
Oh, and remember that in Australia the opposition Liberal Party is actually the conservative/reactionary party. Confusing, I know.
Same thing trying to debate vaccines on some wishy-washy “we’re all friends here” site.
They’re all “oh, there are so many *jabs* in such a short space of time!””Oh, I’ve been using balsamic vinegar and sage leaves on my children” and you try and introduce some, you know, evidence into the conversation and… well, you can guess.
I’m all in favour of balsamic vinegar and sage leaves on children. You just have to get the roasting temperature right, otherwise they can dry out.
Great comments people. I have been mulling over this media response palaver all morning. Nice to contextualise it all with your help.
I was at Atheistcon and I couldn’t have asked for a better event. It was a complete success.
As I stood to clap after hearing Taslima Nasrin’s personal story about the horror of Islam I was fighting back tears and thinking ‘this is why we are here’
The utter shallowness of these media reports that refuse to acknowledge why we speak up so loudly is galling.
I think that the humourous piss-taking is how we cope. If all the presenters had been as heartwrenchingly serious as Taslima I could not have made it through the first day. As it was, we were treated to a serve of PZ’s ‘hard’ Atheism at the end of the day and a it was a treat
I’m waiting to see whether there will be a pointless poll.
*sniff*
makes me proud to see how the regulars here all know what ad-hominem means, and use their spiky boots to the face of the morons who keep using it incorrectly to mean “insult”.
good on ya!
Melanie Phillips is the imbecile who believes that atheists are people who do not believe religion exists. Top that brand of stupid, Sarah Palin!
I roast babies at a high temperature to start, it crisps the skin nicely. While some prefer sage as a seasoning, I find that lavender stands up to the gaminess of modern children better and it complements the sweet floral quality of balsamic vinegar very nicely.
Crap… this really speaks to the Australian media’s low opinion of their market, if these are the best the editors can trot out.
The sad thing is if you read through the comments that these articles generate (and I have, and *ouch* teh stoopid burns!) there are actually a lot of atheists out there around Australia, but this crappy reporting is giving them no extra information, and the tone concern and abysmal arguements from the theists seem to shut many of them down.
Meh… I need to go home and have a kirshenbauminly strong drink!
“Popinjay”?
From where does PZ get these words, whenever I open this page I have to look something up in the dictionary, not that I’m complaining….
Slightly OT; I’ve heard a great deal now about Taslima Nasrin’s speech at the convention. Is there any site at which I could view or listen to it? I’ve looked, but I’m not finding anything; my Google-fu is weak today.
Re that cretin Melanie Phillips’s vomit in The Australian:
Much the same rubbish as when being accused of hating god, jesus, and the rest of that fictive/superfluous mob.
As an atheist, these are considered non-entities, that’s what a-theism is, the supernatural doesn’t apply, – has no validity.
Just like any animal is amoral (at least as far as we know), and hopefully don’t believe in anything other than the next meal coming soon.
So why would I expend energy on hating something that I know doesn’t exist?
Gimme a break, I am not THAT daft! Life is too short to discuss anything with a theobot (GFer, pronounced ‘jeefer‘).
I wonder, when the Pope visits in Australia, or another large Christian convention, does the ABC report on it spending half the time interviewing atheists, muslims or budhists ?
I would never have thought that the ABC, the national public broadcaster, would be that biased. Seems I’d underestimated the influence of Christian nutcases in Australia. I wouldn’t have thought it was as bad as in the USA.
Melanie Phillips’ ploy of asking why Dawkins is “so angry” will draw a wry smile from anyone who is even slightly familiar with her writing. She appears to be permanently angry herself, and writes for a newspaper, the Daily Mail, whose business model depends on stoking the perpetual rage of its readers.
religion can’t withstand time. Cars, Computers etc. don’t run by faith and we don’t work this way either.
@ butch pantsy:
That’s just plain *wrong*!
The proper way to crisp is to first steam the meat, then give it high temp at the end of the roasting (but you have to watch carefully for any fat deposits).
Or just give the skin a going-over with the good old blowtorch after roasting.
Josh @99 and others,
Yup, it really is striking when you’re part of multiple oppressed groups how similar it all is.
There’s the section on tone arguments in here and the “you can never be polite enough” takeaway seems pretty apt when you look at the roasting Dawkins gets despite being the most approachable and even-tempered man there is.
And this great snarky summation of all of the various trolling techniques used on minority groups also is quite familiar to atheists.
Let’s look at some of the sections: “You’re being hostile; You just enjoy being offended; You’re being overly intellectual; You’re interrogating from the wrong perspective; I don’t think you’re as marginalized as you claim; Aren’t you treating each other worse anyway; Well I know another person from your group who disagrees; You’re not being a team player; You’ve lost your temper so I don’t have to listen to you anymore; You are damaging your cause by being angry; You’re as bad as they are; Surprise I was playing devil’s advocate all along”
Familiar?
Yup.
But the fact that it’s gotten this far, that big important people are bothering with the same obfuscations as internet trolls is critical. It’s part of the slow growth and fight endemic to every minority population and as I said before, this is a very very good sign.
The point of these tactics is to shut down a movement, disorganize them or scare off newcomers from finding out anything about them. Aka, to slow down the inevitability of progress. But when they start getting this hysterical in the major media, this means that it’s starting to get impossible and they’re worried that the movement doesn’t seem to show signs of stopping.
Basically, it’s a good sign when they’re willing to put forth effort to try and destroy you.
I think this exercise more than anything has shown that religious people really are like children who want their Santa Claus. Instead of having a grown-up conversation of the role of religion in society, they just claim indigence, accuse atheists of being strident, and retreat back into their nebulous specious sophistic nonsense.
Why can’t Australia grow up and have a serious debate about the role of religion and secularism in our society? It really doesn’t help that the media is getting so indignant about it instead of actually discussing the arguments presented therein.
I don’t know what’s modern about this. It’s already all contained in Meslier’s Testament: Clear and Evident Demonstrations of the Vanity and Falsity of All the Religions of the World, written a few years before his death in 1729.
The only difference is that 280 years later, there’s still no evidence for God.
A few choice quotes from Jean Meslier:
(you’ll note that style wise, not very different from what can be found on Pharyngula)
“I never believed any of that religious nonsense. There’s no God, there’s no afterlife and the church helps tyrants like Louis XIV to keep you poor and exploited. You’re on your own, but stand up to the bastards and you might just create a fairer world.”
“I did not wish to burn until after my death…They can fricassee [my testament] and eat it with whatever sauce they like”
“The books of the Bible are the flawed, even fraudulent, works of those who wrote and copied them, of the same standing as stories of fairies and our old novels”
“Jesus was an arch-fanatic … equally mad, out of his mind, unhappy rogue, a man of the abyss, vile and despicable.”
“The host as the body of Christ is an idol of paste and flour”.
See, not far from PZ’s cracker !
Or you erroneously assumed that a “national public broadcaster” would produce a better quality of reporting than private-sector media. How wrong you were. :-)
The ABC is easily the highest standard media in Australia. Easily, it’s not even appropriate to call the trivia seen on the other networks as “reporting”.
Yet somehow you had to make yet another thing a battle between corporate and public ownership… why do you persist in trying to make us drink the kool aid?
There was a Facebook thread from the AFA with the article in The Australian by that grotesque trollopy little Troll Melanie Phillips on which I commented and then put into a letter to the Editor which I repost here:
It was no surprise to come here and find this from our squid loving patron
Haven’t seen any reporting by private broadcasters. Have you ?
I take Walton’s smiley as a sign that he didn’t want to do this :-)
I don’t know anything about the ABC, but the CBC’s coverage is usually better than CNN (let’s not even mention Fox “News”). Honestly, during the Chilean earthquake you had Rick Sanchez identifying the Galápagos Islands as Hawaii and berating a scientist on air for using metric units. When they aren’t messing up the real news they are covering celebrity gossip for ratings.
I’ve rarely see the BBC, but from what I have seen it’s also better than CNN.
Just for comparison here’s a CNN piece on athiests in America. The panel discussion didn’t even include an atheist.
Walton, I heartily second Kel. The ABC is far and away the best news organisation in the country.
Just one example, one of the atheist speakers at the conference, Phillip Adams, has for many years hosted a serious, intelligent nightly discussion program on Radio National. It’s available on a podcast too.
“It will be interesting to me to see how something that is framed around a largely negative concept, Atheism [ as well as presumably concepts like ANTI-TERRORISM and ANTI-DISCRIMINATION? ], is capable of developing a coherent position.”
Nothing negative is EVER good right?
OK, in seriousness, my previous comment was provocative and a bit silly.
What I should have said is that all news reporting is inherently biased, in one way or another. The concept of “neutral” or “unbiased” reporting is not even coherent. People notice the bias when it concerns an issue they care about – in this case, atheism – and takes a position contrary to their own views. But in reality, bias of some kind is always present.
This is why the idea of having an “impartial” national broadcaster is, at best, pointless and, at worst, very dangerous (allowing propaganda to be disguised as “neutral reporting”). I suppose a representative broadcaster – that is, one which accurately reflects the spread of opinion among the general population – is possible, at least in theory, but I’m not sure why one would want such a thing.
In a lot of ways, I think it’s better to have overtly and unashamedly biased partisan news outlets – so that at least people expect them to be biased, know what their biases are, and can take those biases into account in assessing the accuracy of information.
Searching I see PZ already blogged about that CNN panel “discussion”.
Honestly, the panel all agree that the US is a “Christian nation”, one member says atheists “need to shut up”, the background has the question “Are atheists tactics too militant?”, and another person in the panel says “atheists are not strong [in America] and I think that’s a good thing”.
What really surprises me with te Australian media reporting on the GAC is that they seem to portray miltant atheism and anti-clericalism as something new.
But which planet do they think they inhabit ? I think in France history of militant atheism is a few centuries old. I spoke of Jean Meslier in my comment #126 above who started it about 3 centuries ago, and I don’t think there was a time in our modern history when we didn’t have people like Dawkins or PZ who were so openly critical and contemptuous of religions and the void knowledge produced by faith.
It seems to be an old defensive tactic of religion to diminish the credibility of offensive attacks against it by suggesting that they are somewhat new and destined to fail. But history shows it’s exactly the opposite, it’s the only thing that works, and I’m very glad the anglo-saxon “New Atheist” movement has finally gotten it right.
I’m quite sure it’s going to work, and within a generation or two religions will be relegated to a position in Australia and the USA similar to what it’s like in France: mostly insignificant.
Well of course, but your comment was still a complete non sequitur and frankly tiring of the same looneytarian rhetoric in places where it really doesn’t have relevance. This wasn’t a discussion on the merits of public broadcasting, just how one network covered one issue – the fact that it was a public broadcasting network was not relevant.
Yeah, as long as humans beings are reporting the news there’s gonna be some bias. However, embracing isn’t the solution, except for maybe in the editorial section. It’s very easy to let one’s bias distort the reality. It lets you ignore or misinterpet the facts. Why would we want more of that? So instead of running with a bias why not attempt to minimize it? Try to have stories at least be somewhat accurate.
If people just start getting their news from sources that already confirm their worldview you won’t even to be able to have people agree on basic facts. Truthiness would be even more prevalent than it already is.
Wow. Just, wow.
First of all, caling McGrath a “biochemist”, while technically true, is misleading at best. It would be like referring to, “Barack Obama, a well-known US lawyer.” It’s technically true, but uh, that’s not really what he does these days…
And citing Berlinski to bolster your argument?!? Are you fucking kidding me?????
Yeah. Like the anti-Vietnam-war rallies. Those very pretty negative too, like, being anti-war.
I will say this with some trepidation. Philip Freier (I don’t know if he’s a priest or cardinal or w/e) is absolutely right (well probably not ‘absolutely’, but he has a point. And this is something Sam Harris has put considerable emphasis on. The label ‘Atheism’ is indeed a negative one; there’s no way around that. We are allowing religious nuts to name us in oposition to their beliefs. I’ll ecco S Harris at the risk of boring some of you: “Being an atheist is like being a non-astrologer or a non-racist”. The term is barren of real content. I’m not saying the ‘atheist movement’ is doomed to fail under such label, but its progress will certainly be continually interrupted by the hordes of religious zealots who judge ‘atheism’ without even knowing what it’s really about.
Comparisons to “anti-war and anti-terrorism” movements are ultimately false because “terrorism” and “war” are concepts that most people ALREADY despise! In the case of “Theism – Atheism” we most admit we’re significantly outnumbered. So we need to be strategically wiser.
Here comes the framing wars.
We can’t hide or run from what we are.
Yes. The anti-racism and anti-slavery movements never caught on either. Not even going to mention the anti-Monarchy movement in the North American colonies.
The No Religions run around 24% of the US population, the largest “sect” if they were a sect. This is 72 million people, source ARIS 2008. Someday, the Establishment will have to realize they can’t just ignore them and bash away for the hell of it.
We vote, have children, have lots of education, and pay taxes.
Richard Dawkins an arrogant and agressive individual?
where’s the news report of him flying into a building shouting “Heil Hitler!”?
Cerberus, #124 –
Excellent articles in those links you posted. Everyone should read them. One contributor in the section on the “tone argument” captured it perfectly:
Outnumbered? So what? “Strategically wiser?” How? You go right ahead worrying about terminology and trying to split political hairs to figure out how better to ingratiate atheists with the larger theist public. See how that works out for you.
People like me will continue being “rude” and calling theocratic ideas what they are – dangerous bullshit. We’ll go right on labeling ourselves as atheists (or freethinkers, or rationalists, or whatever we want) and thumbing our noses at people who clench up over our “provocative” and “unproductive” “anger.”
Look, your intentions are in the right place, but you’re not helping. Seriously, that attitude is part of the problem. Go study the history of radical social movements (civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights) before you wax concerned about strategy and tone. I had no time for the nervous nellies in the early gay rights movement who urged us uppity queers to just be nicer, and I’ve got no time for that hanky-twisting now.
It is not we who label ourselves atheists, Thalamus, who are allowing the theists to define us. It is people like you who respond just the way they want you to – with self-doubt, concern, and paralysis over tactics – who are being used as marionettes.
Sorry if that sounds harsh. Actually, no I’m not.
Josh,
Well I suppose either I misspoke or you misinterpreted me. Where does my writing suggest that we relax our level intellectual agression? Where did I insinuate any “self-doubt, concern or paralysis?” I, myself, are often criticized for being strident, blunt and too direct. I think ridicule and satire are incredibly useful when dealing with the sort of lunacy that’s overwhelmingly present among the most pius.
All I wanted to say is that the label “Atheism” in this case is an impediment to our progress. The fact that (at least here in America according to gallup) only 4% of the people would call themselves atheists while nearly 17% proudly declare a lack of belief in God, I think hints something.
You and I see nothing wrong with atheism because you and I KNOW what atheism is simply the application of reason and logic to theology. So, I think words like reason, evidence, logic…..and bullshit is all we need to put religions in their place.
The problem is that most people are ignorant about the most important things in human life. Some people even equate atheism with satanism or other demonic sects. So, instead of spending our time and effort trying to change their dogmatic, adamant, asinine and pre-concieved beliefs about Atheism, we should skip the lecture on terminology and launch right into substance, i.e. reason, evidence, sicence, logic, critical thinking, etc…
In a lot of ways, I think it’s better to have overtly and unashamedly biased partisan news outlets –
so that at least people expect them to be biased, know what their biases are, and can take those biases into account in assessing the accuracy of informationto absolutely ensure that the rich and large corporations get far more opportunity to put over their view than anyone else. – WaltonFixed for you Walton. No charge.
Is that the same Melanie Philips as the gobby non-climate-changist we sometimes see on BBC Question Time ?
If she isn’t the same woman, that means there’s two of them !
Isn’t Phillips an anti-vaxxers as well? Or am I mixing her up with some other know-nothing columnist for the English tabloids?
Yesterday I discovered a jar of Marmit* lurking in the back of a food cuupboard. Gave it a try on a CRACKER ! – Bloody Hell ! – I never thought anything could be even saltier than a R**c*s P*anut Butt*r Cup.
Gross and disgusting ! (The former NOT the latter).
Is it? Well, I must confess to never really being sure exactly what the difference between modern or “new” atheism as opposed to old atheism was all about.
At any rate, the importance of evidence is conerstone to modern thinking and to science, so I suppose, if religion wants to enter into the arena of modern thought, it’ll have to address the issue of evidence.
But this idea of something “framed around a largely negative concept” being incapable of “developing a coherent position” always seemed very odd to me. To hold a position that something/anything (God, Global Warming, Unicorns, Eskimos, Hell, Goverment, etc.) doesn’t (or shouldn’t) exist isn’t a “largely negative concept”. A denial of something is an active and measurable concept and, thus, must be considered “positive”.
Apathy and apoliticism could be considered “non” concepts as they hold no quantitative value. But anarchism, despite being “negative”, is very measurable and has a *very* “coherent position”. (As does global warming denial, zero population growth advocation, anti-war movements, etc.)
Can’t we put this stupid argument away for good?
Thalamus:
Well, it could be either. I do have a hair trigger for “tone concern,” so I probably see it in places where it isn’t happening from time to time.
But, I disagree strongly with the idea that changing the label will make any difference. It’s not the label that people are reacting to, it’s the substance (or what they perceive to be the substance). Yes, certain words get loaded down with connotations. But people are mistaken if they think that changing the label solves the problem.
It doesn’t. It merely resets the clock for a little while until the original meaning (the thing people object to) attaches itself to the new terminology. Steven Pinker calls this the euphemism treadmill:
The only way we can make progress is to de-fang the vitriol aimed at the substance, or we’ll just stay on the euphemism treadmill, wasting time investing magical powers in certain words and believing, wrongly, that changing the word will change the political scene. It won’t.
Is that the same Melanie Philips as the gobby non-climate-changist we sometimes see on BBC Question Time ? – and7barton
Indeed it is. A person either more invincibly ignorant, or more consumed with poisonous rage against anyone who disagrees with her, would be hard to find.
And an interesting one at that given that under biblical laws of an eye for an eye it is appropriate.
However I have evolved past the scrawled ramblings of superstitious herdsmen in a 2,000 year old book and would settle for the public exposure and ridicule, trial and imprisonment of these monsters along with the seizure and confiscation of all monies and assets of the institution that encourage and sheltered them. These assets could then be handed to an accountable organisation to compensate and care for the victims.
Call me a sickfuck if you must but the thought of a paedophile priest receiving the unwanted attentions of Hugo has a certain appeal. ;-)
Oooops how did I put that in this thread. Still learning my touchpad & browser tabs don’t mix. A right cockup you might say.
Judging from her articles I read this past week, that comment is accurate.