jump to navigation

Near Misses April 25, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , 2comments

I seem to be turning into some sort of ScienceBlogs commentator…

Any way, Chris over at Mixing Memory has a post up about the schism between uppity, mean, or new atheists and the rest of the atheists.

I tend to agree with most of the post:
(more…)

Tags for this article:

[?]

Reactions April 23, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , 2comments

There have been a few reactions at ScienceBlogs to PZ’s post (and apparently one at Pandagon) comparing atheists and suffragettes:

Thoughts From Kansas talks about the Overton Window. Is it me, or isn’t that exactly what us mean atheists are trying to do? Am I missing something, or is Mr Rosenau?

Mixing Memory has an interesting read: an article from the 19th century which is all-too familiar.

And, Mike the Mad Biologist says it’s not suffragettes atheists need to think like, it’s Jews.

Tags for this article:

[?]

Civil Disobedience April 22, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , 2comments

PZ has a post up about those familiar accusations against mean atheists being oh so rude.

Not just worth it, but a fantastic post.

Tags for this article:

[?]

Framed! April 15, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , add a comment

Once again, in the ongoing debate about framing science, PZ nails it:

Q: “Do scientists really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public’s beliefs?”  (~ Nisbet / Mooney)

A: “YES! YES! YES! Knowledge is a threat to beliefs held in ignorance.” (~ Myers)

Tags for this article: ,

[?]

Uppity April 9, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , add a comment

There’s more action* at ScienceBlogs these past few days — it’s not all smart birds over there.

Basically, there’s been an ongoing dialogue, in addition to the one about framing, about the nebulous god, and whether or not mean atheists (or uppity atheists, as PZ affectionately calls us) are correct when we attack non-nebulous god-concepts (not to mention a discussion of the problems with the nebulous ones).

Me? I’m uppity, so I’m in agreement with PZ et al. that we not only are correct when we point out the ridiculous nature of a sky daddy, but also that no one (to our knowledge) has come out with even a working description of the god-concept that atheists such as PZ or Dawkins or us ravers in the forums supposedly ignore. We’ve all aksed many times for such a description — the best one I’ve seen yet is that it’s indescribable. Of course, calling something indescribable is describing it…

*Note: because there are a lot of posts on this, instead of stringing them throughout my post, I’m going to list them here (my apologies if I miss one):

2 April: Pharyngula

5 April: Evolving Thoughts

6 April: EvolutionBlog

9 April: Pharyngula

(If you’re interested in the framing discussion, try this post at A Blog Around the Clock.)

Tags for this article:

[?]

Churchillian? March 1, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , 4comments

Over at ScienceBlogs, Chris at Mixing Memory has a post up about — you guessed it — mean atheism. Now, I don’t have much to say about any smugness or self-righteousness among us mean atheists, as I try to avoid lumping us all into one group.

I also happen to pretty much agree with him that one shouldn’t really criticise religion (at least, not the major, worldwide religions) based on social or political effects. This is for the same reason, really, that one shouldn’t declare that all mean atheists are self-righteous and smug — there are too many people, with too many widely varying personalities and nuances, to make such blanket statements. For some more on my take on trying to criticise a religion based on what its followers do, see this thread in the forums.

(more…)

Tags for this article:

[?]

It’s the Content, Stupid! February 16, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , add a comment

A main line of assault in the “mean atheist” wars is the accusation of arrogance. Usually, a battle fought over this particular territory begins with the non-mean-atheists stating that a particular mean atheist is arrogant. The mean atheists then point out that it is not the accused who is arrogant, but rather those who are doing the accusing, especially theists.

As an example, PZ Myers over at Pharyngula has been so accused, and has recently made the counter-accusation. And Kevin Beck carries the battle forward as well. Kevin’s post has two points of main interest for me. The first is an admonition to “[c]onsider the word at face value.”

Very well:

ar-ro-gance
-noun: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride

(more…)

Tags for this article:

[?]

Consistency December 13, 2006

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , add a comment

This is a continuation of the previous post, on stupid atheists.

People are woefully inconsistent. Especially when it comes to subjective things such as taste, preference, beliefs, and morals. Gather up a group of skeptical rationalists, and you’ll find all kinds of different preferences. Food, movies, and music, for example. Or sexual preference, or politcal party. Now then, here’s the question: if rational, skeptical, materialistic thought coupled with a penchant for abstraction and problem-solving doesn’t lead to agreement on foods, music, or politics, why would we think that it would lead to agreement on philisophical issues such as theism?

(more…)

Tags for this article: ,

[?]

Will the Stupid Atheists Please Stand Up December 13, 2006

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , add a comment

Recently the question was brought up on the forums that perhaps atheists are, by default, not stupid. I think it’s fairly on-point — atheists often deride theists as being, shall we say, less than optimally intelligent. I think it’s fairly simple to answer the question, too: Not applicable.

The reasons for this are, of course, not so simple.

(more…)

Tags for this article: ,

[?]