Tag: atheism

Dissent and the godless Left

Dissent and disagreement with dogma are two things the godless simply will not tolerate:

At this time (September of 2011), Dave Silverman was heading up the Reason Rally Committee. There was still quite a bit of planning and promotion that needed to be done, so Dave asked Richard, Elizabeth, and Sean to make videos to promote the Reason Rally. (The video Richard ended up making is still viewable.) Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

I was crushed. I couldn’t believe it. Richard Dawkins was my hero. I looked up to him as a beacon of truth and reason in a world of irrationality. I couldn’t believe he would act this way toward Rebecca. Before I left for the tour, I truly, honestly thought that the whole “Elevatorgate” thing was a miscommunication, and if someone (and I was willing to be that someone) would sit down with Dawkins, they could explain to him why it’s uncomfortable to be propositioned in an elevator by a stranger, and then Dawkins could apologize for the whole thing and everyone could move on. I really just thought it was just ignorance, not malice, that caused Dawkins to act that way.

I think it says a lot about the atheist movement, that a famous speaker can use his position in order to keep someone else off the lineup, and the movement willingly obliges…. I spent two years working for the atheist movement (or to borrow Ashley Paramore‘s term, Big Atheism). I saw a lot of things that made me disappointed in a movement that claims it is dedicated to truth and critical inquiry. I made a lot of excuses for supporting things that I ordinarily wouldn’t have, claiming it all was for the greater good– for the movement, but also for the world.

PZ’s response is downright funny; to understand why, you have to keep in mind that he publicly declared this back in 2012: “For instance, I will not participate in any conference in which Abbie Smith is a speaker. If I’m invited, and later discover that she is also invited, I will politely turn down the offer.”

But now that the atheist feminists are lined up against Dawkins, PZ has changed his tune and claims he will only attempt to impose a speaker’s veto on conferences that are a) insufficiently vibrant, b) lack a sexual harassment policy, or c) “treats attendees poorly”, in his opinion.  Now, PZ has a perfect right to attend, or not attend, any conference he likes for any reason, but this public posturing is simply ludicrous.

To his credit, PZ admits that there is no qualitative difference
between his position towards Ms Smith and Dawkins position towards Ms
Watson and he has abandoned the former. However, he still doesn’t grasp that if it is wrong for Richard Dawkins to use his influence to impose his personal preferences, whatever they might be, then it is wrong for PZ and the SFWA’s pinkshirts to do the same.  This applies to policies and speaker lists as well as people. Of course, few atheists have ever been terribly sound on logic or the concept of universally applied standards.

Fun with atheists

This is amusing for several reasons, particularly the way in which the atheist clearly has no sense of the extent to which he is overreacting.  Barry posted the following review of TIA on GoodReads:


Very good, provided logical and philosophical arguments
against atheism rather than the general apologetics which rely on
historical records and such.”

That’s it. Positive, descriptive, and succinct.  And it inspired the following response from an atheist named abc.

“well i tend to disagree i didnt find it logical,it was more lying by
omission and selective use of imformation with no acknowledgement of the
contrast.”

To which Barry, quite reasonably, responded:

“Really, what parts do you think were actually ‘lying by omission? Or
did you actually read the book. I have heard this over and over from
evangelical atheists. What was misrepresented? What was lying? I
think this is just a drive by posting.”

Thereby inspiring the following response, which is so over-the-top it almost sounds more like an agnostic with a sense of humor trolling Goodreads than the usual socially autistic atheist.  Especially the bit about the burger.  But whether it is real or not, it is funny.

“Do not label.You have no right what so ever to label people,no
bullying.None what so ever.Do you know what ‘evangelist’ means?’A person
who seeks to convert other people to christian faith,especially by preaching’ (source:wikipedia) And what is an atheist:someone who doesn’t
believe in existence of god.Now an evangelist in his nature can’t be an
atheist and an atheist not a christian.it’s like saying ‘a guilty
innocent’.Now that having been said i’ll come to the other part,the fact
that writer chose to dismiss the argument of Dawkins etc,by picking up
parts he wanted to and not trying to provide a complete analysis of
their work.He should also have acknowledged where they pointed out
religion sanctioned violence.For he knew it to be true he failed to
acknowledge it.That is not what i believe unbiased and
comprehensive.Being critical of it or not he should have mentioned it.he
omitted stuff that he thought he couldn’t argue with.Now that’s
injustice to the writers as that’s not all they said and Vox Day has not
refuted their argument.What about those he hasn’t taken up?That’s
‘omission to me and lying he was by implying that he had completely
refuted the argument of these writers or that his work was complete or
comprehensive.Leaving out stuff he has failed to acknowledge he did no
allow the writers work a fair analysis.For omitting stuff and implying
to have refuted all the work of theses writers is lying buy omission to
me.The writer using modes and interpretations he wanted to constituted
to me as ‘omission’.When he makes comparisons with today’s world and
statistics he fails to acknowledge sectranian issues that have
perpetuated and bred violence.Abuse of women sanctioned by religion,the
writers may not have highlighted that but if Vox Day was setting about
to do what was logical he should have included that.And called black
,black and white ,white(no racism)What he fails to say is that
islam,christanity,jewism etc all allow violence in many forms.he chose
to focus on statistic of his choice and i which i believe not to be
independent related to crime,now pray forgive me,were we talking about
that?No.So he choses what to say and what to say it about.another thing
if the writers(Dawkins etc.) were talking about the criminality of a
religious person,that is entirely different from whether religion
sanctions criminal behaviour or not.Well i couldn’t understand what you
have heard over and over from whom ever you have heard it from.Hearing
something over and over does not make it wrong.i dont know what you have
heard so i cant begin to decide on what it is but if a black person
were to campaign over and over racism was wrong,that dosen’t discredit
the truth of his actions.and if this book has all the flaws that it is
accused of ‘over and over’ they wont descredit that that is what it
is.(P.S the term writer/writers is used for Dawkins etc. unless implied
otherwise)That is my opinion and i wont want to take this any further.I
am going to go have a burger,i am feeling light headed.“

Sometimes, when dealing with this sort of atheist, it is best to simply back slowly away and be sure to make no sudden movements.

An atheist incoherency

Clark from Popehat observes an intrinsic contradiction:

The reason for arguing that modern western atheism is incoherent is
not that it is irrational to disbelieve in God; I think that one can be
entirely sane and rational and disbelieve in God (although I actually
think that agnostics have beliefs that are much more consistent with
pure rationality than either theists or atheists, but that’s a side
note).
No, the reason that modern atheists have incoherent views is that they simultaneously

  1. assert that there is nothing beyond that which is visible (i.e. they are materialists)
  2. they believe in rights, and not merely in a legal or social descriptive way, but in an absolute and prescriptive way.

This is not dissimilar from the evolutionist who firmly believes in human equality and asserts race is a myth, failing to grasp that he simply cannot rationally subscribe to both articles of faith.

Cease and desist

Michael Shermer’s lawyers ordered PZ Myers to immediately retract his public allegations of rape at a science conference, but based on the fact that no retraction has yet been made, it appears PZ intends to ride or die with the unidentified accuser.

This firm represents Michael Shermer. It recently has come to our attention that you have made, published, broadcasted, and are continuing to publish and broadcast on your blog numerous false, defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, and/or misleading statements about Mr. Shermer.

We are informed that on or about August 8, 2013, you authored and posted an entry on your blog entitled What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? The Entry contains numerous false and defamatory statements about Mr. Shermer based on certain unsubstantiated allegations purportedly made by an unidentified woman against Mr. Shermer….

As you are the author of one of the most popular science blogs in the World Wide Web, we find your self-proclaimed intentions “to do the right thing” by publishing unproven and unsubstantiated allegations of forced or nonconsensual sexual intercourse against Mr. Shermer to be outrageous and inexcusable.  It is not accident that the Entry containing these extremely inflammatory and defamatory statements about Mr. Shermer has garnered your blog the highest number of comments of any entry in the history of your entire Blog and you clearly stand to benefit substantially from the posting of these unsubstantiated allegations against Mr. Shermer, all while under the appearance that you have some higher ethical purpose for doing so. Clearly, no matter how reasonably foreseeable it is that your actions would result in serious harm to Mr. Shermer’s name, reputation, and character in the science community, you have chosen to injure and humiliate Mr. Shermer by publishing and posting defamatory statements and comments about him.

Here is the entire letter in PDF form. What a pity this was a science conference instead of a science fiction one, or the SFWA’s Pink Gestapo could have waddled to the rescue.

I have absolutely no idea what did or did not happen, but based on the sort of women who attend science conferences and hang out with atheists, I would be very, very leery about putting too much confidence in a secondhand version of events.

First Hugo Danger, then PZ/Shermer. One would assume McRapey’s inevitable meltdown is lurking on the horizon. However, I don’t think he’ll be the next SFWA member accused of sexual assault at a conference. My money is on Jim Hines, aka McCreepy.  His volunteer counseling reminds me of the elementary school teacher with the mustache who is always pestering parents to let him take their little boys camping with him.

At this point, I find it hard to believe that any men risk attending conferences where there are going to be a lumpening of avowedly feminist women. It strikes me as playing Russian Roulette with three bullets in the chamber; these women are absolutely dying to be able to cry harassment and tell the story of their victimization for the rest of their lives.

Mailvox: superior atheist intelligence

A psychologist writes from Finland:

I enjoyed greatly your book Irrational Atheist and used it in my two books about atheism published here in Finland. Have you noticed the new study the summary of which is below? I have not read the full article, yet, but will do it. This must be great news for those “bright” atheists.

The Finnish PhD is referring to this metastudy, which noted: “A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.”

Setting aside my intrinsic skepticism concerning the reliability of metastudies, this finding is nothing new and I have readily conceded that religious individuals are less intelligent than non-believers in general and atheists in particular on average for years.  However, what the midwits who get very excited about this statistical fact never seem to keep in mind is that because there are so many more religious people, there are considerably more highly intelligent religious people than there are highly intelligent non-believers.

In fact, the ratio of theists to atheists with Mensa+ level IQs is more than 10 to one.

Logic dictates that because the vast majority of people are religious, the average religious IQ is right around 100.  This is, in fact, what most of the religion and IQ studies have determined.  The average atheist IQ advantage appears on the order of about 5 points. That is less than one-third the 16 point difference in average IQs observed between blacks and whites.

So, a substantial portion of the observed difference between average religious and irreligious IQs can be attributed to the fact that atheists tend to be a) male, and, b) European or Jewish.  Now isn’t that awkward….

More importantly, the fact that people who believe X happen to be modestly more intelligent than people who believe Y does not indicate that the first group is correct. I suspect that the average IQ of the economists who believed massive quantitative easing would produce economic growth in Japan is considerably higher than that of the average atheist, and yet the recent GDP report shows it would have been hard for them to have been more wrong.

The right side

Looking at these two lists, I’d definitely prefer to be on the side I’m assigned.  I can’t help but notice the supposedly “Insane People” are considerably more successful, accomplished, and better-looking, for the most part, than the “Sane People”.

 

Dawkins and the Dark Ages

In this Twitter spat between Richard Dawkins and the Muslim community, I find it interesting that no one has noted the silliest thing that the world’s most famous atheist said:

Professor Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in a Twitter row after he claimed the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Dark Ages.  The 71-year-old author went on to tweet that the world’s Muslims had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.

His comments sparked anger among high-profile Twitter users including writer Caitlin Moran and economics editor at Channel 4 News, Faisal Islam.

Moran tweeted: ‘It’s time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again.

‘Something’s gone weird.’

While Islam said: ‘Actually, over the last two decades, it’s 8-4 against Trinity. I

‘I say this as a muslim alumnus of Trinity College, Cambridge.

‘Of course if @RichardDawkins had any clue what he was talking about, he’d know to strip out the Economics Nobels, which aren’t quite real’

Forget the fake Nobels of economics, which Islam is correct to point out are not true Nobel prizes, but rather Sveriges Riksbank Prizes in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.  It’s more pertinent to point out that there never were any Dark Ages, in Europe or anywhere else, and even if one uses the term in the historically incorrect colloquial manner, it has nothing to do with Islamic history.

Richard Dawkins is simply demonstrating, once more, the fact that in addition to being a philosophical and theological ignoramus, he is a historical one as well.

UPDATE: It is pointed out that it was the newspaper, not Dawkins, who used the ahistorical term “Dark Ages”.  Fair enough, that is an error that should not be laid at his door.  But he is responsible for this logical error: if Muslims had contributed nothing worthwhile, then the Nobel count difference cannot matter since either Nobel Prizes are worthwhile, thus proving Muslims have contributed something, or they are not, in which case his comparison is pointless.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, since Dawkins is merely playing his usual game of vomiting forth rhetoric in the guise of dialectic.

A fallen atheist

This self-described fallen atheist appears to have realized, as a result of up close and personal experience with the weak and the broken, that kicking away the crutch upon which people are leaning is not the act of a brave intellectual or an honest seeker after truth.  Even if the crutch is an intellectual placebo.

It is the cruel and thoughtless act of a self-centered asshole:

I heard how
the small cross in Takeesha’s purse offered her protection when getting
into a strangers car. “When I climb into that car God comes with me and
keeps me safe.”

I heard how Neecy found the strength to try and find a better life in her Bible.

I heard how Michael’s Rosary “Was a reminder that there is something better than all of this.”
Soon I saw my atheism for what it is: An intellectual luxury for those who have done well.

It isn’t a coincidence that the rise of the New Atheism coincided with the peak of the greatest credit boom in history.  And it isn’t an accident that the New Atheists are increasingly seen as intellectual embarrassments only five years into the Great Depression 2.0.

There is no shortage of scientific evidence that religion is, at worst, a placebo. Even if we assume that religion is entirely false, how can anyone who claims to possess any ethics, let alone superior and rationally determined ethics, possibly justify harming others by intentionally eliminating that placebo effect?

An atheist decalogue

Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments:

The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

  1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
  2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
  3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
  4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your
    husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not
    by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and
    illusory.
  5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
  6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
  7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
  8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement,
    for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a
    deeper agreement than the latter.
  9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
  10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

I don’t necessarily disagree with all of these points, but it is remarkable to observe far they fall short of the original Decalogue, even though the original was produced with considerably less human history upon which to draw.  Let’s compare them, one commandment at a time.

One: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.”

The Decalogue sets down the basis for an objective and universal morality.  Russell, on the other hand, undermines any possibility of morality, but science as well, by establishing uncertainty as his foundation.

Two: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
Russell: “Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.”

While the problem of graven images is somewhat mysterious, lacking any basis for distinguishing right from wrong, Russell is forced to resort to a demonstrably false justification for what would otherwise be a reasonable claim.

Three: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
Russell: “Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.”

Again, the commandment is clear, though its import is unknown.  But it is still superior to Russell’s, which again relies upon an observably false justification.

Four: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Russell: “When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your
husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not
by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and
illusory.”

Russell scores a half-point here because he has the sense to limit his commandment to an exhortation, although he again sabotages his position with a false justification.  We aren’t even sure when the sabbath day is, or understand how to keep it holy.

Five: “Honour thy father and thy mother.”
Russell: “Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.”

This commandment is the basis for civilization.  Russell’s is the road towards barbarism.  Not only is the justification again false, but the commandment is intrinsically pernicious.  Legitimate authority merits respect, it is only illegitimate authority that does not.

Six: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Russell: “Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.”

This is Russell’s first truly coherent point, but it can’t compare in significance or rhetorical power to the original.

Seven: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”
Russell: “Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”

And here the essential triviality of the atheist exposes itself again.  Once more, the justification is observably false.  The importance of inviolate marriages, on the other hand, is integral to sustainable societies, as is becoming more and more apparent in their increased absence.

Eight: “Thou shalt not steal”
Russell: “Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement,
for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a
deeper agreement than the latter.”

Now Russell is just babbling.  Intelligent dissent does not necessarily imply any agreement at all.  And what percentage of the populace is “valuing intelligence as you should” likely to apply in any meaningful manner anyhow?

Nine: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Russell: “Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.”

It is a pity Russell has the need to produce a justification, even a fairly solid one, for an otherwise strong commandment.  But that points back to the flaws in his first commandment and his failure to establish a moral warrant.  Russell’s commandment is literally stronger than the original, although the latter is usually taken to be metaphorical and more broadly applied than its literal meaning.

Ten: “Thou shalt not covet”
Russell: “Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.”

 So, envy is fine, so long as one is envying the happiness of those who are genuinely happy.  This is a pernicious doctrine.

It is fascinating, is it not, to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century.

By taking God out of his equations, the atheist loses everything, because he destroys the foundation upon which so much of what he values is constructed.

Go with God, r/atheists

It would appear the high-flying discourse of r/atheism failed to live up to the exacting intellectual standards of reddit:

We know many of you will wonder what happened to /r/politics and /r/atheism and why they were removed from the default set. We could give you a canned corporate answer or a diplomatic answer that is carefully crafted for the situation. But since this is reddit, we’re going to try things a bit differently and give you the real answer: they just weren’t up to snuff.

I know I’m shocked, as I’ve so often been impressed by the arguments presented by r/atheists.