NOTE – I tried making this post on PZ Myers blog a while back, but Im getting a message that “it has been withheld for moderation”. Strangely other entries are making it to Myers blog. Lets see if this post actually gets approved on the Myers blog.
UPDATE – ( 19th July 2008 ) This post has now appeared posted on PZ Myers blog. #415
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread_dont_fill_this_on.php
This is a response to comments from delusional atheists over at PZ Myers blog who feel that atheists can network, organize and work for a common cause and yet not be called a “movement” or an “organization”. The following comments were in response to one of my comments made on this page- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread_dont_fill_this_on.php
#208 Richard -
“Heaven forbid that thinking atheists should not follow like sheep everything that PZ says. We should be more like the Catholics who question nothing that their priests do to them or their members and just shut up and bleat.Non-believers”
#218 Gunofsod-
“Get it straight PZ Meyers does not speak for me as an Atheist any more than you serious atheist circle jerks. This isn’t a club, there are no dues, no tithes and no self appointed spokesmen.”
# 191 Wowbagger -
“Atheist movement? What the fuck? Get a clue. It’s not a gang. It’s not a sewing circle. It’s not a fucking country club that you choose to join because you think the golf course has the best back nine in the tri-state area or because you’re impressed by the wine list.”
——————————————————-
Scrolling down this page will reveal the obscene amount of approval and cheer, that Myers has been showered with by people who obviously share his beliefs. So far I see no one among the atheists questioning Myers acions. With all the talk about atheism not being a club, is it forbidden that atheists even question Myers actions?
Its simply obvious that Myers has become a celebrity in blogs run by atheists. In addition to people here praising Myers, heres something I found… http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/pz-myers-notice-me/
We all thought this type of blindeyed fanboyism was confined to the domain of pop stars and actors. Whats even more more embarassing is that Myers actually responded…
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/this_better_not_start_a_trend.php
Then heres an excerpt from user comment #238 -
“If non believers and other freethinkers in the USA believe that their cause will be further improved without conflict and without having to provoke and chock the religious folks, they are as deluded as the religious folks.”
This is just one tiny example to illustrate the strong “us” mentality among atheists.
This same “us” mentality is echoed
-In the repeated targeting of communities holding, lets just say, incompatible viewpoints.
-In the networking between atheists to form alliances.
This link provides a list of atheist organizations http://richarddawkins.net/atheistResources
-In the organized campaigns to achieve common goals under the banner of atheism.
Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists#Court_cases to read the legal campaigns run by just ONE atheist organization.
The fact that atheism has now now evolved into “movement” status is pretty clear.
And for those who still insist that atheism isnt a movement…denial makes for a warm blanket.
Tags: Atheist, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins
July 18, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
“With all the talk about atheism not being a club, is it forbidden that atheists even question Myers actions?”
I don’t think it’s that nobody questions his actions, I think (at least for myself) that rational people have looked at what he did, and felt it was obviously a joke, and even if serious, all he did was to make comments about an edible symbol of which he, and many of us, have no allegience.
There are about a billion people on the plant who feel that a cow is a sacred animal, this is no way causes me to have any reverence for a cow, other than as a good steak.
I’m curious WHAT is it that YOU feel PZ did that was morally, ethically, legally, or in some other way wrong?
“The fact that atheism has now now evolved into “movement” status is pretty clear.
And for those who still insist that atheism isnt a movement…denial makes for a warm blanket.”
Here I actually do agree with you. Many atheist are part of a movement. However I know that many have called atheism another religion, and that is one line I would draw. I can go into that further if you wish, but that was not your argument, just a clarification I felt was neccesary.
I also don’t understand why people would have a problem with being part of a movement, or group. I don’t follow religion, not becasue it’s a group, but because it is false.
July 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
Hello Rodibidaby,
Thanks for taking time to respond. Sorry I couldnt get back to you earlier.
“With all the talk about atheism not being a club, is it forbidden that atheists even question Myers actions?”
Rodibidaby – I don’t think it’s that nobody questions his actions, I think (at least for myself) that rational people have looked at what he did, and felt it was obviously a joke, and even if serious, all he did was to make comments about an edible symbol of which he, and many of us, have no allegience.
Whether it was a joke or a provocation aimed at specific people is simply a matter of perception, depending on which side of the fence youre on.
You will note that the essence of my posts on Myers blog, was the negative impact that his remarks have had on the new atheism, that claims to be rooted in rationality and logic. Something that the atheists posting on his blog denied this. They did not seem to be open to the notion or at least the possibility, that Myers iconoclastic remarks was very damaging to their own movement that claims to be based on rationality and logic.
And IF more well known names in atheist circles were to continue this trend (because religious symbols mean nothing to them) and if this type of thinking becomes the standard viewpoint shared among atheists, then religious people would simply need to sit back and watch the “rationality” and “logic” dissolve from the imagery of the new atheism.
The new atheism itself would degenerate into another group on the same line as groups that desecrate graves of other groups, or spray paint their symbols on places important to other groups simply because “it means nothing to them”. These groups claims to qualities such as “righteousness” or “reason” wouldnt meant a thing to anyone except its members.
Rodibidaby – “There are about a billion people on the plant who feel that a cow is a sacred animal, this is no way causes me to have any reverence for a cow, other than as a good steak.”
This serves as a good analogy to illustrate the implications of Myers remarks.
Your lack of reverence for the cow would not be a problem in itself. People who hold the cow sacred share their country with a minority do not share the same reverence for the cow and things are going just fine. In fact, you wont even have to worry about cow worshippers forcing or intimidating you into accepting their views or changing your own.
The problem would begin only when you start extending your lack of reverence to desecrating the cow (even as a joke) in front of the community that holds it sacred. You would be offending a community that that didnt have a problem with you NOT holding the cow as sacred. a community that never tried to force its beliefs on you…
Of course, whether or not you feel you have wronged them is upto you. If you believe that your actions are justified because their sacred cows mean nothing to you, then this would be exactly what Myers is doing.
Rodibidaby – I’m curious WHAT is it that YOU feel PZ did that was morally, ethically, legally, or in some other way wrong?
Similar to the previous example involving cows, I dont thinks Catholics have a problem with someone not holding the cracker sacred in the first place. But Myers expressing an intent to willingly desecrate it CREATES a problem for the Catholics.
Furthermore, morals and ethics are rather subjective. So I cant expect you to relate to a system of morals/ethics that isnt yours. As far as legal goes, Ill say Myers has done nothing wrong. Unless of course, threatening to desecrate a religious symbol is a crime in Myers city.
” The fact that atheism has now now evolved into “movement” status is pretty clear.And for those who still insist that atheism isnt a movement…denial makes for a warm blanket.”
Rodibidaby – Here I actually do agree with you. Many atheist are part of a movement. However I know that many have called atheism another religion, and that is one line I would draw. I can go into that further if you wish, but that was not your argument, just a clarification I felt was neccesary.
I also don’t understand why people would have a problem with being part of a movement, or group. I don’t follow religion, not becasue it’s a group, but because it is false.
Simply put, all religions are groups, but all groups are not religions. Atheism is one example of a group that is not a religion.
A movement is when any group acts in the direction of a cause, and clearly the atheist movement is doing just that.
Being part of a group or movement implies nothing but sharing similar ideas and working for common interests. Atheist groups/movements do just that, but most atheists I have come across deny the fact that they are displaying all these traits of a group/movement for the sole reason that there is no established heirarchy as in religion/cults/political parties etc.
On Myers blog, some people lashed back at me for showing how atheism has all the traits of a movement. The notion of belonging to a group was somehow insulting to them. Yes, all atheists have their own individual sensibilities and tastes, but it is their way of looking at things that binds atheists. Being in a group doesnt really do away with a persons inviduality.
Atheists look at church goers as “one group” and feel they are displaying some sort of herd mentality. So the very mention of atheism being a movement is interpreted by many atheists as a likening of atheism to a religion, which they dont like.
July 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
No problem on the delay… As hard as it may be to believe, at times some people have other priorities than replying to my comments online…
Whether it was a joke or a provocation aimed at specific people is simply a matter of perception, depending on which side of the fence youre on.
What about the ORIGINAL incident that began this whole shit storm.
A college kid took the cracker, did not try to make a big deal about it, he just wanted to take it to show his friends. He did not make a big deal out of it like PZ did, and yet he also has received death threats.
Keep this in mind. The actions and reactions have been this:
1) Kid takes cracker
2) Catholics PHYSICALLY ASSAULY kid
3) Catholics threaten to kill kid
4) PZ makes a joke about the incident (weather you find it funny or stupid is irrelevant, all he did was make a joke about defiling a cracker)
5) Catholics send death threats to PZ
Even if you want to say that PZ was wrong in his actions, you MUST admit, the reaction by the catholics, both to the kid and PZ, has been ridiculous.
If people want to call PZ childish, or ignorant, or stupid, or whatever, that’s fine. But both the kid, and PZ had DEATH THREATS over a cracker.
You will note that the essence of my posts on Myers blog, was the negative impact that his remarks have had on the new atheism, that claims to be rooted in rationality and logic
I agree this incident has not shown rationality, or logic. But if you read PZ’s blog, he intersperses hard science with goofy insane shit. His personality is one that tends to make light of situations.
Perhaps you don’t agree, but in my opinion, NO JOKE, no matter what that joke is, deserves one’s life to be threatened.
They did not seem to be open to the notion or at least the possibility, that Myers iconoclastic remarks was very damaging to their own movement that claims to be based on rationality and logic.
I think we both agree that there is an atheist movement.
I think we both agree that PZ made a stupid joke.
But we disagree of the impact on the atheist movement.
I think this incident will show MUCH more about the catholics involved than it will about PZ. Keep in mind, PZ made a joke (doesn’t matter if you find it funny, stupid, or offensive, it was OBVIOUSLY a joke). The catholics involved threatened the life of not only PZ, but a college kid, OVER A CRACKER.
I know I’m beating the death threat thing into the ground, but in my mind, this is the single most important thing to keep in mind.
Not once in all of this mess (that I have seen, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) has ANYBODY threatened physical harm to any catholic (or other believer).
The ONLY PEOPLE who have committed this crime (and yes, death threats are a felony in the US) are catholics.
Whether you agree with the kid, or with Dr Meyers, neither one of them committed any crime or threatened to take the life of another person.
For a religion that claims “turn the other cheek” and “love they neighbor as thyself”, this is certainly showing a bad side (note I did not say the worst side, I’d rather save that for the whole raping children, or inquisition, or turning a blind eye towards Hitler, or …)
And IF more well known names…
Really, you’re trying to take the intellectual high ground when “your side” is the one threatening to murder people?
REALLY?
You seemed smarter than that.
The new atheism itself would degenerate into another group on the same line as groups that desecrate graves…
Again we’re talking about a cracker. PZ and the kid who started this whole thing have NEVER committed any crime. You’re taking a HUGE leap to say that somebody who has never mentioned committing any crime, will all of a sudden devolve into criminals.
Once again, I’ll mention it. The only side of this issue that has committed any crime, have been the catholics.
In fact, you wont even have to worry about cow worshippers forcing or intimidating you into accepting their views or changing your own
But in this case we have an example of catholics “forcing or intimidating” people into holding their symbols as sacred.
This is a perfect example of one group overreacting and using threats of violence and death because somebody does not revere their symbols as being sacred.
As a PERFECT example of how this looks to an outsider, explain the difference between the catholics over-reaction to to this, and the muslim over-reaction to the Danish cartoons.
Christians in the US were more than happy to condemn the muslim threats of violence over the cartoons, and here many of those same people are defending the ones making the death threats, because NOW they believe in the SAME god.
ANYBODY who wants to condemn PZ and approve of the catholic over-reaction and not be a hypocrite, should ALSO fully support the muslim reaction to those cartoons.
Of course, whether or not you feel you have wronged them is upto you. If you believe that your actions are justified because their sacred cows mean nothing to you, then this would be exactly what Myers is doing.
I will say, I enjoy a good steak. I also have some very good hindu friends, who are opposed to eating cow. When I have eaten at their house, I have eaten what they serve. When they have eaten at my house, my wife has made non beef dishes. But when we have gone out together, I have no issue at all ordering a steak or burger, and they have no issue with me eating a cow in their presence.
I dont thinks Catholics have a problem with someone not holding the cracker sacred in the first place. But Myers expressing an intent to willingly desecrate it CREATES a problem for the Catholics.
They threatened the kid as well, not just PZ. This, to me at least, shows it was not about PZ, or intent, it was about the cracker, and people not holding it to the same standard they hold it themselves.
If they never threatened the kid, and ONLY PZ, then PERHAPS I could see your point, but the catholics who assaulted the kid in the first place, and threatened his life prove different.
Furthermore, morals and ethics are rather subjective. So I cant expect you to relate to a system of morals/ethics that isnt yours.
But in this case, catholics are attempting to hold people to their own moral guidelines (desecrating the cracker is bad because it’s immoral, not illegal).
Simply put, all religions are groups, but all groups are not religions. Atheism is one example of a group that is not a religion.
A movement is when any group acts in the direction of a cause, and clearly the atheist movement is doing just that.
Here is one spot we totally agree.
I think it’s silly for people to claim there is no atheist movement.
I also think atheists NEED a movement (proved by the fact that in polls, Americans say Atheists are the most untrusted group in society). Too many ignorant fools equate atheism with satanism or some other such nonsense, and Atheists need to project the reality of what it is that they stand for.
—–
It all boils down to this:
No matter what you feel about PZ’s blog post, he never committed a crime, only the catholics did this.
By assaulting and threatening the kid, and not JUST PZ, the catholics have shown this is ALL about the cracker, and making others hold their symbols sacred. It’s all about FORCING their beliefs onto others, plain and simple.