Top posts of 2013

Let the obligatory year-end list commence:

  • On Thunderf00t, misogyny, misandry and nonsense — Want me to make a long story short for you? Thunderf00t, a.k.a. Phil Mason, said some things about misogyny that some people thought were controversial while on a brief run over at Free Thought Blogs, and regardless of whether his removal from FtB was warranted or not, he has seemingly been on a hack campaign against his detractors ever since. … [Read more]
  • Shocker: Priests quibble over gay bishops — For people who talk so much about morality, the divine and transcendence, believers sure do find a way to make the church and religion look more and more like the man-made, carnal institutions that they are. … [Read more]
  • Darwin Day and Ken Ham’s pseudoscience — Two hundred four years ago todayCharles Darwin, the man who would go on to introduce the concept ofevolution by natural selection (although he didn’t call it that at the time), was born. Of course, here in the year 2013 when we know that evolution is the process on which everything else we know about biology is based. … [Read more]
  • Wealth, treasure and thrift in the Bible — So, I listened to a little bit of Dave Ramsey today on talk radio because, well, conservative talk is about the only option in East Tennessee, and I usually prefer talk with which I disagree compared with bad pop and worse rock. If you don’t know who Dave Ramsey is, he’s basically a right wing pro-investment guy who, while mostly giving callers advice on money matters, periodically ventures into politics and religion. As you might imagine, Ramsey fits right in with a local radio station that gets most of its content from FOX News Radio. … [Read more]
  • Is God good? — For simplicity’s sake, I am mostly going to be speaking here of the Judeo-Christian conception of God, known as Yahweh in the Old Testament and God the Father in the New Testament, but a good portion of this will apply to the God of Islam or any other deity that man has created with certain transcendent, otherworldy characteristics, such as omniscience. … [Read more]
  • Wutu wouldn’t resurrect Jesus, either — Obviously, the historical evidence for Jesus passing down parables and performing the many miracles attributed to him is slim to nil, so much less is the possibility that Jesus suffered a physical death and then on the third day ascended to the heavens to take his place (again) at the right hand of the father, thus becoming one of numerous figures in the Bible to break the laws of nature. This is, nonetheless, what believers claim … [Read more]
  • Christians who believe in evolution — In the first place, I think it’s a stretch to suggest that belief in God-inspired evolution is kosher among mainstream Christians. For support of this, see my post on an official Darwin Day and the general pushback in the United States against giving Charles Darwin the recognition he deserves, particularly given the number anti-science, young earth lawmakers sitting on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and indeed, in Washington generally. … [Read more]
  • On trial: ‘The Case for Christ’ part 3c — This is the continuation of a series on “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. If you missed them, here are the other parts in the series: Part 1Part 2Part 3a and Part 3b. … [Read more]
  • Finding purpose without religion — Religion is definitely a kind of “anxiety cure” for people who are unwilling or unable to face the stresses and fears inherent in life without looking to a father figure in the sky for guidance, and ultimately, for a path to eternal salvation, thus in part negating the trepidation people have about death and the dark. Notice that I said “in part” negating that fear. Believers don’t seem to spend much time thinking about this, but like it or not and regardless of whether heaven is a real place or not, they will still have to one day face their own mortality like everyone else. … [Read more]
  • Atheists: Baby eaters, angry, hateful and generally unpleasant folks! — I’m always surprised by a Christian’s basic lack of understanding when it comes to their perceptions about just what it is we unbelievers think about God and religion. They often paint atheists as angry or filled to the brim with hate. How they come to this conclusion is beyond me, but take this guy … [Read more]
  • Falling down a wormhole courtesy Alvin Plantinga —  from over at the Cross Examined blog on Patheos recently considered philosopher and Christian apologist Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, which essentially states that if evolution is true, human cognitive function developed in such a way as to support survival, but not necessarily beliefs as truth. Thus, according to this argument, how can we trust what we think we know about the world? And if we can’t trust our own ability to glean truth reliably, God must be the conduit by which we mere humans can know things. … [Read more]
  • A few words on presuppositionalism — because that’s all it deserves — Over the years, I’ve dispensed with most arguments from the Christian apologetic worldview, but one of the more asinine and obscurantist that has been resurrected by modern evangelicals is something called presuppositionalism, which is essentially the claim that only God is the arbiter of truth and without God, man can’t know things or use reason and logic to form conclusions about the world. … [Read more]
  • 1860 all over again —  As reported by Slate, a group of Republicans, lobbiests and other conservatives met in Washington this week to hash out a plan called the Convention of States Project to attempt to wrest some control away from the federal government and give states more power. … [Read more]

What context? Atheism has no context.

While PZ Myers is right about some people who mistakenly confuse the word “freethought” to mean

that you’re allowed to think whatever you want …

he continues to spew this nonsense that atheism has a context outside of a disbelief in god, although every dictionary and encyclopedia in print says something to the contrary, and this alternate definition of atheism — that it comes prepackaged with feminism and forms of social justice of all kinds — seems lost to everyone in the world except a few bloggers at Free Thought Blogs and their supporters. This context, it seems, is an invention that is relevant solely within FtB circles.

Why these folks seem so ready to abandon basic humanism, which really does cover every part of social justice that they — and I – support, escapes comprehension. Are they really that determined to defend Jen McCreight, the mastermind behind Atheism Plus, even if it means defending a redundancy to the very end? This seems to be the case.

She gets it

One of the most thoughtful objections to modern feminism and gender studies that you are likely to find, and intellectually, this towers above any arguments for feminism coming from Richard Carrier and his ilk, and by the way, it comes from a woman who actually understands the true implications of gender equality:

So, I have this theory

I said recently that I will “probably” take a break from talking about Atheism Plus, but I hope readers will appreciate the hint of uncertainty inherent in the word. I must, at least for a post or two, revisit this redundant “movement” that is really just secular humanism in disguise.

Richard Carrier recently gave a talk at the American Atheists Convention 2013 in Austin, Texas, and in the speech, he rightly credited Jen McCreight with coming up with the term, “Atheism Plus.” In the original post, McCreight, in her long-winded title, “How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism,” outlined the numerous humanitarian causes that she hoped would be attached to the term “atheism,” which as we are all well aware, caused a firestorm of controversy from the atheism “purists” who want atheism associated with nothing other than its dictionary definition.

My goal is not to argue all of that right now. My theory is this, and mind you, it’s just a theory: that many atheist activists and bloggers like Carrier (and others like P.Z. Myers, Adam Lee, etc.) have embraced Atheism Plus as something that is bewilderingly apart from secular humanism — no matter that they are pretty much one in the same — simply because these nonbelievers, most of them feminists, don’t want to come out in opposition to McCreight’s idea. Perish the thought, that prominent male atheists might have the audacity to disagree with a female nonbeliever.

Thus, Carrier, Myers and their ilk credit McCreight for branding the term Atheism Plus, yet when you boil it down to its base component, they are talking about nothing other than secular humanism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Proliferating the stupid

Maybe someone can help me understand the logic in this: P.Z. Myers disagrees with the message conveyed by a stupid meme on Reddit, and instead of ignoring or down-voting the post — or whatever it is people do on Reddit — he brings attention to it and even publishes the offending picture.

If you are offended by something posted on the Internet, why not just move on? Rather, Myers has effectively ensured that this piece of Internet trash will be further proliferated and cached online for years to come from his own site. That’s what I call a good feminist hard at work.

***

Postscript

To save people who may come here from Myers’ site or elsewhere the trouble of wading through the comments below, let me clarify a few points. This particular post was a clusterfuck of unintended inconsistencies. I’ve already admitted that, and hell, if I had a do-over, I would have approached it differently. When you blog five years with no filter but your own mind, you might whiff a time or two, and I think it’s important when people call me out if something I write is beyond the pale in some way.

First, let me say that I appreciated Myers’ tone and the way he handled his response to this. Obviously, I routinely publish content with which I disagree for the expressed purpose of outlining what I feel is wrong with it. The intention of the post was, from my perspective as someone who does not adopt the feminist label, to highlight the fact that here was a feminist, Myers, dredging up an image that is probably best left in the bowels of Reddit. He could have just linked to it as I did or simply described it without the link.

The only thing that I question about what he said in response was the distinction he made between something that he views as merely “wrong” versus an offensive image. This, it seems to me, is splitting hairs. If he didn’t find that viewing the image caused a certain amount of displeasure, which is the definition of “offensive,” presumably he wouldn’t have written about it and used it as an example of how Reddit’s reputation is falling “deeper in the slime.” Folks often like to avoid the word “offensive,” claiming that they have thick skin and that little truly offends them, and while that may sound good on paper, that’s not always the case, even if we don’t like to admit it. I’m willing to concede that perhaps all this was erroneous thinking on my part in hindsight — and many of you have made your case — but this is why I bothered to mention Myers’ post in the first place. The delivery, as I’ve said before, left something to be desired.

As for my views on equal rights and feminism in general, I’ve written about this at length, and it most closely resembles John Stuart Mill (Read “The Subjection of Women“), and more recently, Noel Plum 99, although if Mill was alive today, I have my doubts that he would adopt the modern manifestation of feminism because it seems to embrace women’s rights, which is all well and good, but it often does so at the expense of the other half of the population, whereas Mill called for “perfect equality” with no favoritism one way or the other. Noel Plum described a view that I think is perfectly reasonable, that we should be working toward, not necessarily “equality of outcome,” but “equality of opportunity” between the sexes, wherein everyone has the same chance at success in life and everyone is treated as individuals.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sex and atheism: Greta Christina educates us

I continue to chafe at some of the so-called intellectuals on Free Thought Blogs continually referring to atheism as a “movement” and associating it with all these other causes that actual nonbelievers have every right to care about or not. I happen to think that supporting equal rights with no preference given to either gender is a positive thing, and this is why I have a reservations about feminism. I happen to think that a progressive view of politics is the best way to move society forward.

I happen to think that whatever legislation is being passed in California, specifically, the Oakland and San Francisco Bay area, will eventually filter out to the rest of the nation, and we will, kicking and screaming, one day more resemble California than the inverse. I happen to think that civil society has no place for semiautomatic weapons, but have trouble supporting the eradication of guns altogether because of legitimate security concerns and the potential for recreation-only uses. I happen to think that Black History Month is an outdated and somewhat insulting relic that should be dispensed with. I happen to think that stem cell research shows near limitless potential to save lives and improve the health and happiness of chronically ill patients. I happen to support anyone’s right to marry so long as they are paying taxes and are an upstanding member of society.

What I do is express my opinions; what I don’t do is dictate whatever I believe onto the entirety of nonbelievers, understanding full well that some skeptics might be conservatives in other parts of their lives. Some might be in favor of traditional marriage. Some might think Black History Month is a perfectly fitting recognition for our black brethren.

In her most recent “all the things that atheism is not” post, Greta Christina whiffs again, referring to the ludicrous “atheist view of sensuality:”

The atheist view of sensuality, of pure physical pleasure and joy in our bodies, is about eleventy billion times better than any traditional religious view. Our view — or rather, our views — of physical pleasure are more coherent, more ethical, way the hell more appealing and fun. We don’t believe in a supernatural soul that’s finer than our bodies, more important than our bodies, superior to our bodies in every way. We don’t think we have a soul separate from our bodies, period. We sure as heck don’t believe in an immaterial god who thinks that our bodies are icky — even though he, you know, created them — and who makes up endless, arbitrary, unfathomably nitpicky rules about what we may and may not do with them. We understand that the physical world is all there is. We understand that our bodies, and the lives we live in them, are all we have. And as a result, we are entirely free — within the constraints of basic ethics, obviously — to enjoy these bodies, and these mortal, physical lives. As atheists, we’re free to celebrate our bodies, and the pleasures they can bring us, as thoroughly and exuberantly as we can.

So why don’t we?

Why isn’t atheist culture more physical? Why isn’t it more focused on sensuality and sensual joy? Why is it so cerebral so much of the time? As atheists, we’ve flatly rejected the idea that there’s a higher, finer world than the physical one. Why does it so often seem as if we’ve bought into it?

She goes on to talk about how atheists — where this logic comes from, I don’t know — tend to be more “cerebral” in their approach to life, and thus, the sexual lives of nonbelievers are not as fulfilling as they could be. First, we can flatly reject the notion that religious people can’t have fulfilling sexual lives. That’s just anecdotal, atheist know-nothing rubbish. Spoiler alert: Christians have written mounds of books about how believers can have titillating sex and stay true to the faith. Or, if you reject the notion that Christians are somehow excluded from fulfilling or even kinky sexual experiences inside the walls of marriage, pick up this page-turner: “Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage.”

While I think it is true that the large majority of nonbelievers try to live in the moment and appreciate that this is the only life they are going to get, it’s also anecdotal to suggest that nonbelievers aren’t living sexually fulfilling lives. If the former is true, that nonbelievers appreciate the brevity of this life and live accordingly, why would they not be making the most of their sexuality? This seems to be a self-defeating argument that she’s making. Does Christina bring any proof to bear that atheists are prudes when it comes to the bedroom, that most of us have this nerdy side that makes us uncomfortable enjoying sex and sensuality? This is apparently the best she could do:

I know for a fact that many atheists, maybe even most of us, don’t live this cerebral way in our private lives. I know that I’m not the only atheist who revels in good food and better hooch; who fucks all afternoon and dances all night; who walks in the sun for miles and pumps iron for the sheer endorphiny pleasure of it; who literally stops and smells roses. But our public life typically doesn’t (sic) reflect this. There are notable exceptions, of course: Skeptics in the Pub and similar events leap to mind. But in large part, our public life as atheists — our events, our writings, our culture — is geared towards political activism, social change, the pursuit of science, and the life of the mind.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a passionate devotee of political activism, social change, the pursuit of science, and the life of the mind. But that’s not all atheist culture has to offer. Not by a long shot. This wacky notion that our selves are not separate from our bodies and therefore this life is all we have… this is one of our greatest strengths. And yet, when it comes to one of the most obvious logical conclusions of this notion — the idea that ethically pursued pleasure not only isn’t sinful, but is an actual positive good — we flinch from it in public. When believers accuse us of being sybaritic hedonists, we hotly deny it… rather than saying, “Hell yes, we’re hedonists — why shouldn’t we be?(“) (italics mine)

For me personally, I think that presenting a public face that tells the world that nonbelievers celebrate the mind, while enjoying life and all the same pleasures as well-adapted, law-abiding human beings is a good message to send. One severe problem with the gay rights discourse in this nation is that Americans by and large only associate gay and lesbian people with sex. They have a preconceived notion that sex is the only thing gay people care about, and essentially, that it defines them. Obviously, this notion is terribly wrong, and I think it would be unfortunate if atheism came to be associated with hypersexuality.

We are simply people who want to experience what life has to offer and as much of it, before the lights go dim. Nothing more, nothing less. To attempt to elevate atheists beyond this, as somehow carrying the ball of humanity going forward, I think, is flirting too closely with arrogance and elitism, and this is the pretentiousness that seems to ooze from every orifice of the so-called Atheism Plus “movement.”

Speaking of pretentiousness, here comes the inevitable Richard Carrier-esque exhortations from Christina:

And sometimes it can be more subtle, an unconscious absorption of less obvious ideas and reflexes. As we see with the acceptance of the preposterous notion that physical experience is less valuable and meaningful than intellectual experience, and that physical pleasure is something to be ashamed of.

So let’s knock it off. Let’s celebrate our bodies as much as we do our minds. In fact, let’s stop seeing our bodies as something totally apart from our minds. Let’s not simply reject Cartesian dualism and the absurd notion that the soul is the real self and the body is just a skanky shell. Let’s reject its mutant offspring, the absurd notion that the intellect is the real self and the senses are just a meaningless indulgence. The atheist view of physical pleasure is more coherent, more ethical, and way the hell more appealing and fun. Let’s put that view front and center.

Nonbelievers, you have your barking orders. Follow them or suffer the wrath of Atheism Plus.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The best of Atheism Plus 2012

Ohio Atheist is featuring a year in review on atheism in 2012. Since it’s equal parts conclusive, funny and true, it’s worth posting in its entirety:

Atheism 2012: The Year in Review

*Warning* Adult language below. :)

Now that 2012 has passed, I thought I’d share with you what I learned about atheism in 2012, through Twitter, YouTube, blogging, etc. Since I am relatively new to the “community,” some of the events that triggered what I learned in 2012 occurred before 2012, but I learned them myself in 2012. As a premise to my list, please note that I am a man, and thus, a misogynist asshole.*

  1. I may only go into elevators alone. If a woman enters the elevator with me, I must leave immediately.*
  2. As a man, my brain is that of a damaged woman. Unfortunately, because my brain is damaged, I am too stupid to realize what a misogynistic asshole I really am. Any woman (who is not a “chill girl”) who tells me I am a misogynistic asshole is inherently correct, and I must immediately apologize and modify my behavior.*
  3. When crossing the street and a female approaches, I must immediately run away. If I am in a crowded area full of many females, I had no business being there in the first place.*
  4. Virtual hugs are bad. Really bad.*
  5. Even though I have never raped a woman, or ever desired to, I will rape you, if you are a woman. Come here, it’s rapey time.*
  6. If I am drunk and have sex with a woman, she has been raped. If she is drunk and I am sober, I am still a rapist. Only women can be raped, and only men can rape. Actually, sobriety is irrelevant. All sex is a man raping a woman, even if it’s two men having sex. It’s all rape. Rape!*
  7. Social justice is a well-defined term that everyone agrees on. There is no room for interpretation. Thank goodness.*
  8. All atheists are mature. No atheists result to name calling, profanity, false DMCAs, or doc dropping. It never happens. We’re all upstanding hallmarks of a good society.*
  9. When commenting on blogs and tweeting, saying ‘fuck’ a lot of writing in all caps is an effective communication technique and should be used whenever possible.*
  10. If you disagree with a feminist about anything, you are a misogynist.*
  11. ‘Mansplaining’ is a real word. Seriously, go look it up in the Webster’s dictionary. It’s there.*
  12. When selecting speakers for an atheist/secular/humanist conference, you must select an equal number of men and women, or more women. Qualifications such as experience, education, scientific acclaim or knowledge, speaking ability or number of best sellers about atheism are irrelevant. It’s best to just pick some random bloggers – but not me, I’m a guy.*
  13. It’s OK to tell others to “check their privilege” when using your own for personal gain.*
  14. Blogging is ‘real’ activism. Don’t waste your time working with legislators, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or helping battered women. Stay behind your computer screen and affect real change.*
  15. Atheism + is a raging success. It is not a self-proctored form of therapy, as some detractors have claimed.*
  16. Atheism naturally leads to feminism and social justice (as well-defined as it is).*
  17. Equality only means equality for women. Men cannot claim inequality under any circumstances. And other minorities, such as African Americans and Hispanics? Forget about it, especially if you’re a man. You already have equality, so shut up, you misogynist asshole.*
  18. The true definition of atheism is “equality for women.” All that lack-of-belief-in-any-gods stuff is irrelevant.*
  19. Silencing critics and name calling are logical forms of argument.*
  20. Logical fallacies and claims without evidence only matter when debating theists.*
  21. There is only one brand of feminism.*
  22. I’m a man, so I should go fuck myself.* **

*Upon critical analysis, I determined these claims were in fact, false.

**Does not apply to PZ Myers.

(Yes, this is satire. Don’t call your mom if you don’t like it. Just keep blogging and let the slactivism flow through you…and don’t forget to use the word ‘fuck’ a lot in your comment.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freethinker Tweets of the day: Atheism Plus edition

[tweet https://twitter.com/NYBoxTurtle/status/295584191310090242]

Note: This is a truncated quote from this source.

[tweet https://twitter.com/Wad3_W1ls0n/status/295573999109419008]

[tweet https://twitter.com/jaspergregory/status/294496011827675137]

[tweet https://twitter.com/AngrySkepchick/status/294429816093020161]

[tweet https://twitter.com/MaxDecimus13/status/293128645227200512]

[tweet https://twitter.com/RichardReed84/status/293128171832893441]

[tweet https://twitter.com/eightyc/status/293087411376881664]

[tweet https://twitter.com/safeguardnda/status/295398324641603585]

[tweet https://twitter.com/idebunkforme/status/295267305305292800]

[tweet https://twitter.com/idebunkforme/status/295266459913969664]

[tweet https://twitter.com/dougal445/status/295264627095375872]