The anti-baboon
I left a Cynic boot print on my cab driver last night. He was bemoaning the obligatory niceness of the season, the strangers that give their good wishes.
I told him to ask the next one why they aren’t nice all year ’round, not just now.
He brooded at the road for several minutes, chewing his lip.
Then said, “Y’know, I think I will”.
Perhaps I made a difference to his life, perhaps not. Don’t really care.
grey lining 
December 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Trite seasonal good-will is nothing more than rote, thought-free Tribal Ritual.
December 20, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The question that I ask myself every year around Xmas time is ‘why can’t everyone be as cheerful as they are at Xmas all the time?’
It’s like they save their cheerfulness for one time of year instead of being that cheerful all year. That’s kind of odd, don’t you think?
December 21, 2011 at 7:01 am
Cheerfulness, like vacation time, is accumulated slowly over the year for each day one toils in misery. Supply is limited and does not carry over into the new year. Since it’s expected in abundance during the holidays, one must save it up so he doesn’t run out too early. Can’t be too careful.
We live in a silly world.
December 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I think that I sense a business opportunity here:
A Cheerfulness Bank.
It would make ‘withdrawal’ a happy affair, and generate its own interest!
December 22, 2011 at 4:51 am
‘why can’t everyone be as cheerful as they are at Xmas all the time?’
Where is it, exactly, that “everyone” is cheerful at Xmas? The main thing I notice around where I live is short tempers and stress.
December 24, 2011 at 11:03 am
I encounter the same thing, either that, or those that fake being cheerful, like when they are trying to get you to buy something. It seems everyone is stressed and annoyed this time of year. I try my best to stay at home as much as possible, and avoid it.
December 20, 2011 at 9:36 pm
The baboon board theme song –
December 21, 2011 at 12:49 am
If there wasn’t a particular time of year designated for making the effort, only a few people would. Most people are naturally self-centered. If you just decided to be a more altruistic person on your own, burnout comes quickly. What’s the point if everyone else treats you like crap. If we all make the effort together, then we may experience a few moments of shared joy.
We really need to make the decisive shared effort at this time of year. Otherwise, it would be so incredibly depressing in the Northern Hemisphere. I can see why Australia doesn’t really need to make this effort in December.
What do you people do when it’s the middle of June? Travel north?
December 21, 2011 at 1:44 am
That sounds like hell, and I live here!
It’s not difficult to be nice to people. It does not require altruism, and unless one has forgotten or was never taught the lessons of childhood it does not (usually) require a great deal of effort. Why can that shared effort not be made the rest of the year either? Why make it sound so difficult?
December 21, 2011 at 1:05 am
I want to add as the odd-ball Christian(Catholic)in this crowd, that I reject the notion that we define Christmas for the rest of society. Since these big winter celebrations have been an established part of the culture (in the NH), Christmas was an adaptation. It’s a beautiful one at that for Christians. The billboards announcing that Jesus is the only meaning of the season, annoy me as much as the obnoxious atheist insult “war on Xmas” displays. They’re rude and unnecessary killjoys.
Everyone is entitled to enjoy the holidays. If you choose not to participate, don’t try to ruin it others.
December 21, 2011 at 1:11 am
Jesus did not exist.
Not ever.
“He” is a ludicrous non-existent and clearly juvenile fantasy.
How on earth can one both be a sane adult, as well as a ‘christian’, for fuck’s sake?
I am keen to learn, by the way.
Mental pathology has always intrigued me.
December 21, 2011 at 7:40 am
How about you learn about actual mental illness before you go using it in your facile insults you empathy devoid fuck?
December 21, 2011 at 1:21 am
It’s very much like a spoiled child screaming, “It’s *MY* toy and YOU can’t play with it because I don’t like you!” On the other hand, sincerity matters too, and I very much suspect that the Christmas Combatants are very much like that the rest of the year, too.
December 21, 2011 at 1:10 am
that should be “for others”
December 21, 2011 at 2:06 am
Powerful evidence for the emptiness of holiday well wishes is that store clerks are forced by policy to say something like “Have a happy holiday!” so that the store can make more sales. Doesn’t it seem bizarre to be commanded to have a happy holiday, or to “have a nice day”? I suppose most people don’t think about it. It isn’t insulting or anything, just odd.
If I wish someone well, I decline to use a flaccid phrase like “Happy Holidays!” Maybe they aren’t having a happy holiday, who am I to presume? Why not make it a little better for them yourself with some kind of sincere gesture instead of repeating the same empty words as the store clerks who only do so out of obligation? *shrug* Just a thought.
Ah, but giving people gifts is assault now isn’t it? (I simply couldn’t resist, sorry Franc.)
December 21, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Only if one simply speculates about giving a gift by placing it peacefully in another’s pocket does it become real prosecutable genocide and a crime against humanity, attracting the death penalty.
Speculation is a capital crime, according to some folk.
December 21, 2011 at 6:28 am
I’ve been an atheist since birth.
When I was younger, I was perhaps less of a cunt in some ways, and more of a cunt in others.
When someone would say “Merry Christmas” to me, I’d say “oh, Happy Chanukah”
they would look at me and say “I’m not Jewish” and with a smirk I’d say “and I’m not Christian”
usually they would walk off infuriated, but occasionally they would say, “I did not realise you were Jewish” and I would respond, “I’m not”. Then if they were not horrified at first, they would be once they realised I was an atheist.
“Happy Holidays”, I can deal with, although I find it PC and ridiculous, at least it does not exactly have a specific religious connotation. The holidays really should be for children, and children only.
Going into debt buying things for adults, that they don’t even want, is rather horrendous. If you can’t help yourself, give to that person’s favourite charity as a gift, then at least something good is coming out of the nonsense.
I’m a complete Grinch. I despise this time of year.
December 21, 2011 at 11:39 am
…
The best training wheels for theological dictatorships happen to be infused into every colorful christmas gift.
You get everything, the insinuated “miracle-tree”, the “eternal life-morning” and instead of a never ending agony in ambers you just get a lump of persuasive coal when you are “bad”.
All brought to you by the sponsorship of December deceit.
You also get the wingless benevolent green helpers as well as the unnatainable northern land for the few sleepy & delusional enough. All inside a mixed bag of countless other shameless pavlovian, positively reinforced, surreptitious, traditional forms of theological pre-sales recruitment strategies.
Remember, the red man knows when you are bad…and eventually what you are thinking…It is all part of a red and snowy pre *celestial North Korea*, (on cute training wheels)
After all, what’s the harm of feeding cute white enslaving lies to your children?
“[The concept of Heaven is]…a celestial North Korea…”
*Original quote by Master Hitchens
PS
Thank you Hitchens for inspiring us all.
…
December 21, 2011 at 8:53 am
There is a really interesting book entitled The Battle for Christmas, by Stephen Nissenbaum. He goes into great detail researching and outlining the origins of Christmas as we currently practice it.
Despite its name, Christmas is not really a Christian holiday or festival. It’s roots, at least in North America, and in many other Western countries are in Carnival.
Christmas was, so to speak, more or less hijacked by Christians fairly recently — historically speaking.
Obviously I cannot go into detail here — it’s a long and exhaustively researched book. Suffice to say that Christmas as currently practiced is much more a consumer celebration, and the very new-fangled (historically speaking) invention of celebrating and gifting children, than it is a Christian event.
December 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Yes. I have heard him speak about the book at length, and find his depth of erudition to be startling, and his research so thorough as to be almost obsessive!
I intend to buy said book, when it rises to near the top of my priority list.
December 22, 2011 at 1:27 am
BTW, Merry Christmas, everyone!
Go get your fainting couches;)
I suppose when New Year’s comes around several anti-theists will be perturbed at the way Christians hijacked the entire calendar.
The whole world marks time around a delusion according to Michael.
Somehow, it works! (with an extra day every 4 years.) How did those religiously tainted scientists and mathematicians manage such perfection? We all know that the Church halted scientific progress, right? What’s with the calendar?
December 22, 2011 at 4:57 am
Please, just stop it with the “fainting couch” shtick. No, it’s not somehow audacious or brave to be a Christian celebrating Christmas, no matter how fervently you manufacture that scenario in your head. \
December 22, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I don’t know…
2 thumbs down so far
I want everyone to enjoy the holidays, even **gasp**Christmas. It’s a national holiday in US.
Atheists don’t mind Thanksgiving. Who do you think we are thanking?
You can view Christmas in a similar way. Celebrate the holiday gift-giving, great food, nice parties, the annual bonus (if you’re lucky enough to work for an employer who distributes them), the lovely decorations.
Or is the real reason some atheists hate Christmas because as children they found out Santa wasn’t real? Therefore, a man named Jesus is a made-up story too? But you honestly don’t have to believe in either one.
So please join me! Let’s have some fun 🙂
It’s been one wild year in the atheist/skeptical blogsphere!
Maybe Franc could do a post next week where we can vote certain characters as “drama queen”, “bitch”, “cunt”
December 23, 2011 at 12:20 am
Spectator. I’m still dissecting the Chrys Stevenson filth. I haven’t had time. This is quite a surreal situation. I just haven’t had time to devote to it.
December 23, 2011 at 1:42 am
Sorry she’s sucking the life out of you, Franc.
I never heard of this person before she stabbed you in the back. Is she that important?
I emailed you a major bone-head blunder Laden made. Just like Her Pudginess, he foolishly just dug himself deeper. The guy he libeled(slandered) even has an attorney (solicitor) who penned a virtual NOA.
I know you’ve denounced him as too insignificant to warrant your attention. But maybe you ought to consider the action Tallbloke has taken. Although Laden is just a footnote to the bigger injustice this guy if facing.
Maybe I need to start my own blog?
Nah! too much work!
Anyway, hang in there Franc!
What happened to that pic we were supposed to print out and hand to PZ Myers? It came to my Feedly, but the link was essentially a 404.
December 22, 2011 at 2:35 pm
of the year.
December 23, 2011 at 12:04 am
I drove a cab for years, and, for the first couple of them, I would acquiesce to what I thought the fuckers wanted to hear. Then, I realized, it was a shitty job that couldn’t get much worse. So, I then started to give my true opinions.
Now, for those that don’t know, I live in the heart of Redneckistan! That’s right, good Ol’ Dixie.
If they were especially “spiritual”, I would let them know that I thought Heysoos was teh ghey that loved whores, or that their heroes in Washington love teh butseks.
I was eventually fired for offending customers.
December 23, 2011 at 12:07 am
Am I correct in assuming that many here are Anon?
Aren’t we all faggots?
December 23, 2011 at 1:52 am
Anon? As in 4chan?
Not me. I just enjoy the unique clarity Franc vividly describes.
He’s taken a lot of heat from FFTB. So yes, we are anonymous. But not “Anonymous” or Lulzsec. At least I’m not.
I like YouTube trolling drama. But don’t have my own channel.Some memes I’ve encountered. But most get past me.
The Bronies were the latest aspect of online culture I became aware of. So that should explain just how hip I am.
Oh, and my boys love to play Minecraft.
December 24, 2011 at 7:52 am
spectator,
You are one of the few theists with critical thinking skills. Normally I do not give religion a pass in that department,, but honestly I was surprised to find that you were not an atheist.
spectator,
You are one of the few theists with critical thinking skills. Normally I do not give religion a pass in that department,, but honestly I was surprised to find that you were not an atheist.
I truly do not understand how one can be so logical and still be religious, I am well versed in the neurology of belief, and how our brains have that as our default. I’ve been atheist since birth, so I even have difficulty relating to atheists that were once religious, we have the atheism in common, but our pasts are so incongruous, that I think we view being an atheist in a different manner.
Why would I suddenly feel differently about your intellect, what you have contributed and your sense of humour, because I now know that we have a contradictory view on something? (granted, it’s a big disconnect).
To me, you are a fellow gender traitor when far too few of us speak up, and I respect that.
You are a rarity, I almost never find anything in common with those who are religious. If you can respect that we are atheists, and even join in and feel comfortable, the least we can do is the same for you. I was there when Phil Plait made his infamous “Don’t be a dick” speech, and I completely disagreed, in fact I was profoundly annoyed. I still am, but I think we should take things on a case by case basis, and you have proven yourself to be an asset here, plus you make me laugh.
So those of you who feel the need to attack spectator when she had the balls to admit to not only being religious in a lions den of atheism, but have not once said a negative word about our views, you may want to take a good look at yourselves.
Personally I desipe all of the holidays (except for Halloween *wink*). The reasons go far beyond religion. If we take the religious aspect out of it, I am repulsed by what Christmas has become. Adults running around frantically in unfriendly and greedy crowds of people purchasing items for other adults while going into debt, and when most of the time the receiver of the gift does not even like it, but feels obligated to wear or display it.
I don’t like the spending, I don’t believe that material things once or twice a year are the way to show one cares, I find it excessive and ridiculous, and why just once a year on a specific day?
Why not give a gift sometime when you just happen to come across something that reminds you of that person, when one is not in a rush to get gifts for everyone on their list, which just keeps growing in order to keep up with other people who may have a gift for you.
That to me shows far more thought and appreciation for that person. And why get gifts for acquaintances? Why adults at all? And on that, why not give to a charity in that person’s name? Do they really need that trinket, or sweater, or tie? If you must spend money, give it to a needy cause, a charity, isn’t that what “giving” is all about?
Why all of this obligation to buy things for everyone you know? I feel the same way about birthdays, unless one is a child, the person that should be shown appreciation is the person’s mother. She is the one who went through the pregnancy, cared for and loved and taught and raised you as a child. She gave a gift that no one else could possibly give you, dealt with the terrible toddler years and the teenage years, and still loved you with all of her heart. It is an enormous amount of work and sacrifice to be a mother, and even after 18, it does not even stop there. One does not stop being a mother when the child no longer lives at home.
I don’t understand why one’s birthday is a celebration for them, what did they do to warrant gifts and parties? I am aware that one day a year “mothers day” is celebrated, but I don’t think that is enough, and again, why on a specific day? Why not when you think back and appreciate all she has done for you? Why not when you see something she would love, and give it to her just because, or cook her favourite meal, or just show your appreciation in another way, not when someone else has decided that a certain day is when moms are acknowledged for their devotion. I hate the fact that one needs a day already decided for them when they should do something kind.
I am using mothers as an example here, I feel the same for fathers, especially the ones who were a single parent, and also the ones who were a huge part of one’s childhood, or whoever was the love and caretaker when you were small. And if you were unlucky, and did not have a person who gave you their all, then show your appreciation for something else, like an animal shelter, or sanctuary. Donate or volunteer, or give your time to children who also did not have someone to care for them, make a difference in their lives. it is far more rewarding than purchasing a material item, and it does far more good. Why is this not obvious? I find something seriously wrong with the thought process of most people. Is it to one up others who are spending idiotically, is it to keep up with the Joneses, is just laziness, as a random gift is easier than taking the time to consider what is truly important? Or is it just a complete disconnect and being oblivious and self-absorbed?
And yes, I also despise North American Thanksgiving. Why be thankful on a certain day, once a year? It’s roots are not something the US should be proud of, and I have other reasons, that I will get attacked for. I have been an ethical vegetarian for 27 years, and I am horrified about how Thanskgiving is centered around a dead bird, who was raised in horrible conditions, and killed for a celebration that is meant to stand for appreciation, respect, and doing good deeds. The only turkeys and pigs that are thankful on Thanksgiving are the ones who were rescued by sanctuaries. Enough about that, I refuse to debate or discuss my feelings on that matter (and if anyone here wants to start an argument about it, I will not respond.)
Here is one of my favourite quotes:
“I don’t have to attend every argument I’m invited to.” -Anonymous
Clearly I can’t relate to the thought process, so there is plenty even excluding religion that I have issue with.
If I can appreciate and respect the views and intellect and humour of meat-eaters, even though that particular aspect of their lives goes completely against what I feel is just and ethical, then those here can respect and appreciate you.
See, I’m not always a cunt, but don’t tell anyone, or else it will ruin my reputation.
December 24, 2011 at 7:53 am
sorry about the duplicate paragraph at the beginning, I’m not sure how that happened.
December 24, 2011 at 9:03 am
sacha said:
“I’ve been atheist since birth….”
sacha, my dear, we are all atheists from birth. Everyone single one of us. Like much of what we “know”, theism is a learned behavioural response system.
“So those of you who feel the need to attack spectator when she had the balls to admit to not only being religious in a lions den of atheism, but have not once said a negative word about our views, you may want to take a good look at yourselves.”
Good point. I am somewhat militantly atheist, but I’ve found spectator to be a very worthwhile and readable commentor.
“Personally I desipe all of the holidays….”
When I was still working in an office situation, I loved all the hoidays because it meant time off.
Also, and I feel this is something that a lot of anti-holiday (for whatever reasons) people seem, to me, to often overlook: A holiday is fundamentally what you, as an individual, make of it. To wit: For me, for the last 25 or 30 years, Christmas has been pretty much exclusively about getting together with best friends to drink, play board games, and cook and eat a bunch of really yummy foods, and then sit around enjoying each other’s comanpy. Yes, gifts are often involved, but nothing excessive, nothing frantic, and as much as possible, nothing meaningless, trendy, or tech-based.
As the years go by I find it increasingly easy to ignore the uglier aspects of Christmas by simply not taking part in them. Of course, it becomes impossible to ignore every single bloody institution playing all the world’s worst Christmas music, but, well, one must learn to close one’s ears I suppose.
“Why not give a gift sometime when you just happen to come across something that reminds you of that person….”
Indeed. My tactics precisely.
December 24, 2011 at 10:53 am
John Greg:
Indeed, I should have said that I struggle to relate to one who was religious and then became an atheist.
Precisely my point, my dear Watson. I too am a militant anti-thest and have nothing but contempt for religion.
My profile states the following:
“lifelong atheist (the other kind of atheist: uncomprimising, unapologetic, non accomodating anti-theist) that has not changed at all, however, in this case, what we have in common with, and appreciate about spectator is not a religious topic. I thought it was funny when she said:
It shows she has a sense of humour about it, and as Franc has said “ideologues have no sense of humour”. She isn’t prostlysing, nor condemming, nor quoting scripture, or arguing the point. As I previously said, it took courage to admit that she is not an atheist. How many theists have you known that join in on a clearly atheist blog, contributes great content, is friendly, and is not attempting to troll, or preach, or convert?
I known of none. not one, ever.
Even Hitch has said that if the religious kept it to themselves and did not attempt to encroach on his life or the lives of others, left alone the separation of church and state alone, and did not try to sway him, he would not have an issue.
I’ll see if I can find the exact quote.
Quite honestly, I never thought I’d be defending a theist, but this is a special case, and that should be taken into consideration.
December 24, 2011 at 10:59 am
grammatical and spelling errors galore in my previous comment. I did not proofread, and it shows. sorry.
December 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Pat Condell, (a hero of mine and also a militant atheist) has uploaded a new video which is quite apropos for the topic at hand:
December 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm
sacha,
I looked at the 2 links provided in the youtube description, and I dont see how Pat condell is correct on either of these.
1) Nativity scene on the Texas courthouse lawn.. this cant be characterised as just a ‘public space’. Its a ‘state space’. Looks like a clear case of violation of church and state. This case is being fought by Dan Barker’s FFRF.
2) Santa Monica atheists: They won a lottery of who gets to use the advertising space.. thats all. Thats no ‘conspiracy to get rid of nativity scenes’.
December 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Thanks, Astro
I did not research any of it, and I should have. I was not thinking of the specifics at all, just the point. Actually I did not even register the specifics. There are some things I disagree with in the video, and others that I think are spot on.
It’s the PC, everything is offensive that infuriates me, and the identical “pearl clutching horror” that the theists have when atheists make even a completely benign comment about their religion.
If the religious icons are on the courthouse lawn, that is unacceptable, not only to atheists, but to others that have a belief in other religions, and I would fight that battle.
If someone has a Christmas tree and nativity scene in front of their house, that does not offend me, but if someone had a big red A and a flying spaghetti monster decorated, there would be hell to pay. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing when atheists act the same way.
This topic also crosses many different topics, it seems that everyone is offended all the time. I despise the whole idea of PC.
December 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Tim Minchin wrote
“…[those] who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way.”
article here:
http://www.timminchin.com/2011/12/22/im-not-on-the-jonathan-ross-show/
December 27, 2011 at 3:36 am
1.) The disestablishment clause prevents government from establishing an official church so that they cannot collect a church tax — not from “offending” and “excluding” non-Christians — and to say that putting up Christmas decorations on the courthouse lawn is a violation of disestablishment is utter nonsense, pure and simple.
2.) You’re technically correct, which granted is the best kind of correct of all. Even so, perhaps American Atheists should become more acquainted with the conventional wisdom that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If AA wanted to make a real impact, they should have put up Christmas decorations — maybe secular, maybe not, I don’t give a damn — instead of their dumbass billboard that a) nobody including myself gives a crap about, and b) just makes them look petty and foolish.
Of course AA doesn’t do that because it isn’t interested in making an impact, only in manufacturing controversy.
December 27, 2011 at 4:24 am
Overlord,
This debate and these arguments have been repeated numerous times, and go nowhere.
1) FFRF has earned my trust, and I attach greater weight to their legal team’s opinion on what constitutes violation of church and state, and how it applies here
2) If AA wanted to make a real impact, they should have put up Christmas decorations
I dont see how putting up Christmas decorations would have made an impact.. feeding infantile delusions doesnt appeal to me. AA is making a real impact, by bringing people out of the closet, and mobilizing groups across the country. Atheists are hated by the religious majority just for their unbelief. Looking “petty and foolish” to some is the least of my concerns. As long as the actions are legal and ethical, I have no problem supporting AA.
December 29, 2011 at 7:46 am
1.) I believe it is foolish to accept the interpretation of law from any kind of special interest group, and especially their legal team.
2.) Legal and ethical is not good enough, as we come back to the difference between “can” and “should.” When I observe the impact that AA makes, I’m invariably left wondering if they are simply out of touch with people or socially retarded. Like the baboons, they do not represent me and I resent that they presume to do so.
Atheists are hated by the religious majority just for their unbelief.
I accepted this basic assumption for several years, but to this day I’ve seen no evidence of it outside of the fringe religious freaks who fear and loathe everybody who is different from them. I accept it no longer.
December 29, 2011 at 8:52 am
1) Well.. Thats the best expert opinion I have access to, and like I said, they have earned that trust with a history of legal victories in this field. Also, its not that this is a ground breaking case. If you follow the link I mentioned earlier, there is a precedent for this.
The Supreme Court has ruled it is impermissible to place a nativity scene as the sole focus of a display on government property. See Allegheny v. ACLU of Pittsburgh, 492 U.S. 573 (1989); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1983).
If you have references to expert opinion that runs counter, please provide.
2) Re: Atheists are hated by the religious majority just for their unbelief.
I cant believe we are back to the basics. ok fine. If we concern ourselves with individual experience, then it all depends on where you live and how you mingle with people. For e.g this guy lives in a lot more bothersome environment than me.. the guy at atheistrev.com. I am unable to dig up at the moment his specific posts about his life. Why dont we look at some studies? http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/
December 31, 2011 at 1:42 am
I love questioning the basics, as they are repeated often and examined little.
You truly don’t suspect that the statement “Atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority” is a politically motivated distortion of what the study actually says? It just strikes me as a convenient half-truth for a group which seems eager to line up as the next oppressed victim in America. N.B., I fully accept that recent events may have made me *overly* suspicious, but can you really blame me for being skeptical?
As for Allegheny v ACLU, I think my non-expert opinion is both sufficient and correct. I think the Allegheny decision was a bad one, establishing a precedent that does more to harm free speech than reinforce the church-state barrier. Though they generally make wise decisions, the Supreme Court is not infallible.
December 25, 2011 at 6:53 am
Thank you, Sasha and John, for your kind words!
And that video from Pat C is terrific, too!
Lately I’ve checked out the Amazing Atheist, believe if or not. My husband yelled at me to turn if off, because he thought the kids were watching it. (the swearing) LOL
Un…Honey….it’s me….sorry, I’ll turn it down. 😉 No, it wasn’t the kids!
As far as believing in God (or a god), I feel it’s part of the individual psyche or something. A few years ago, there were only a handful of acquaintances that I knew were atheists/agnostics. I know a lot of people who believe in God, though. They even pray and meditate, but don’t identify themselves as religious or regularly attend/even belong to a church. Many of them are just as hostile towards (organized)religion as the online I’ve atheists involved in the blogosphere. Many of them describe themselves as spiritual, not religious.
One day I decided to amuse myself looking for ghost videos on YouTube. Capt Disillusion came up in the search and I was riveted by his channel. From there I stumbled upon skepticism. I thought I’d struck gold! Around the same time, I discovered podcasts. SGU and pretty much every other skeptical podcast were all huge disappointments, despite the rave iTunes reviews. The I found Skeptoid! One of my 3 favorite podcasts to this day. He mentioned his atheism in one episode, but that was pretty much it. I got involved in their email list, and that’s were I encountered people who are as active in their atheism, as the NeoCons are about evangelical Christianity. I had a lot of questions they were all too enthusiastic to answer. I learned a lot about the mindset. Many of them share your bewilderment as to how any intelligent and skeptical mind could possibly be anything but atheist. But I also quickly learned that atheists are just as varied as their believing counter-parts. Like the “spiritual, not religious”people, there were “agnostic atheists” or just “lack belief”, etc. But they all wanted “in God we Trust” off US currency and “under God” edited out of the US Pledge of Alliance. I invested a lot of time debating each one of their objections.
How did I end up here? Long before elevatorgate, the “skeptical movement” sickened me. They are not promoting critical-thinking or science education. There is no boundary between skepticism and atheism. A few members attempt to make the distinction, but the dogmatic majority is hostile to the idea. (DBAD, anyone?) Well guess what? Once skepticism adopts any other ism, it is no longer skepticism. The feel-good mission statement regarding critical-thinking and science education is PR euphemistic nonsense. Just like the word “green” is no longer just a color, science has a new definition. Science is interesting, fascinating, and full of intrigue and wonder. Who wouldn’t want to follow a site called :Scienceblogs?
Scienceblogs, to me, was even more egregious than a bunch of drunken atheists pandering to feminists at their own self-contained conventions. Heck, most philanthropic fundraising events give attendees a noble excuse for a tribal party. But a website promoted as science media with the Baboon board (or worst, Dispatches from the Culture Wars)?
Good thing they all moved to FFTB. Elevatorgate was a painful eye-opener for a lot of rational people. Although it technically occurred in the Atheist wing of the “community”, it’s revived the skeptical aspect that is so attractive to many in it’s simplicity. I applaud the emerging stand against the tyranny of group-think. Franc’s colorful analysis with the humorous commentary is beacon of light.
No, I will never, ever, ever peddle my beliefs. If there is no god in your reality, then it’s between you and Him. I wasn’t raised Catholic. I married one, and became very …I don’t know the word…attracted? to the flavor of Christianity. On the one hand, you have exorcisms and miraculous visions. But there is also very academic and intellectual, as well as artistic, tradition. The scholarly approach to the Bible is more appealing to me, than no-brainer literal-ism of evangelicals. They are not into sudden revelations or one-time born-again moments. Life is a journey, not a destination.
Also, Catholics phrase their theology in this manner, “The Church teaches that…” Not, “this is what is so”. Which offers some individual leeway for nuance. We do have a creed, but it’s limited to believing in the Trinity, one baptism (no double-dipping), one Holy Church (Protestants please get over it and come back where you belong.) The parenthesis are my commentary, btw.
True “free-thinking” ought to allow every individual to follow their own conscience. How can you learning anything, if you already know everything? Plus, it sounds pretty boring to me. I don’t believe in Dawkins’ memes. Otherwise, I should have learned physics, calculus, chemistry, etc by osmosis.
Babies maybe atheists. But by 2 or 3, they are able to believe in Santa. Then they become skeptics well before age 10, all on their own (despite the whatever lengths their parents will go to). The simpler explanation that it’s really mom & dad, is human cognitive development in action.
Here’s to a better 2012!
December 27, 2011 at 7:37 am
see what you have done here, Overlord:
https://greylining.com/2011/12/20/reality-check/#comment-5523
You have now forced me to do a bunch of research to determine what I agree with. fuck you, and I mean that in the most loving of ways.
December 29, 2011 at 9:15 am
Overlord,
Thank you.
Obviously I don’t hate atheists. They’re as diverse as Christians. Some just don’t believe in God and that’s all. My vision of Utopia (now that’s a fantasy!)would be where people demonstrated respect for the individual. No 2 people believe exactly the same thing. The most mysterious thing to me is how each person has a completely unique perception of what is real and makes sense to them. Unless someone asks for your opinion, leave them alone. The beauty of a secular nation is we get to vote as a group, but are free to be individuals. Religion is part of the human experience (or not). The atheism isn’t going away, either. We have to share this space and time. Let’s try to get along and stop trying to reprogram each other.
Wait, on second thought, discuss what ever you want. Declaring a conversation over, pisses people off too
Happy New Year!
We really need to do something about this Gregorian Calendar, I suppose. Geez, it’s all calibrated around this Jesus, guy. Surely that is very offensive to non-Christians, right?
December 29, 2011 at 1:44 pm
As for the calendar, there is in use an alternative in regards to the BC (Before Christ) AD (Anno Domini) use, especially in the scientific community.
CE is a fairly recent term (1708). It refers to Common Era and is used in place of A.D. the dates are the same. An example is 2011 AD is 2011 CE.
BCE means Before Common Era. For example 400 BC is 400 BCE.
from the “cesspit of lies” (see glossary – https://greylining.com/glossary/):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
December 30, 2011 at 4:56 am
So if we just call it CE and BCE it sanitizes the Gregorian Calendar and voila, it’s a “scientific” calendar?
That’s a huge relief! Imagine going to all the trouble that the Vatican did to come up with an accurate calendar (actually, they commissioned a group of astronomers, mathematicians, and such). The main point was to synchronize Easter. However, then there’s still an additional formula to calculate which Sunday should be Easter every year.
The History Channel uses “Common Era”, too. They even use those terms when the show is about Christ or the Bible (remember “Mysteries of the Bible”?) But it’s not like they are a considered a reliable source anymore. Too many doomsday prophesy and ancient alien programs have destroyed whatever credibility they might have had at one time.
December 30, 2011 at 5:33 am
spectator, I actually wrote this up several days ago in response to your first post about the calendar.. when you said “religiously tainted scientists and mathematicians manage such perfection. We all know that the Church halted scientific progress, right? What’s with the calendar?”
But it got caught in spam/moderation, and I tried couple of reposts.. neither made it so I gave up. I will try one last time.
Back in the days of “primitive and largely agriculturists”, say 3000BC, people needed to know when to plant seeds etc and initially relied on the “sky calendar”.. i.e zodiacal background for the sun. The (perceived) 12 constellations and the lunar cycle gave rise to concepts of year and month. And a Julian calendar with 365 days p.y and leap year every 4 years was already in place by 45BC. So.. why are you claiming any credit for/association with religion/Christianity?
But the problem with the Julian calender was that the solstices would drift over time.. i.e by 1582AD June21 was no longer the day of the summer solstice.. as can be trivially observed by keeping an eye on the sunrise each day.. and the Gregorian calender fixed the problem by “unleaping” every 100th year but retaining the leap of the 400th year. To do this, they had to figure out how much drift there was over the centuries.. not too difficult once you maintain records. In fact, even this calendar isnt perfect. There’s going to be drift in about 6000 years from now (IIRC from my last serious rumination on this about an year ago).
The Church did halt scientific findings whenever it contradicted its own claims. when there was no conflict, it would let it through. Not just the church.. any other religion does. any ideology does. Are you really disputing that?
December 30, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Spectator, the pope and Christianity retro-fitted the calendar that the scientists and mathematicians discovered.
so the Pope basically hired scientists and mathematicians to create a new calendar to suit his religion, it just so happened that it was a far better way to account for time.
The Catholic church could (and can) afford the very best, and it was an honor to be commissioned by the Catholic church, and if you did not feel honored, you were not going to speak about it. They were the most powerful entity in the world.
December 30, 2011 at 1:04 pm
oops, forgot link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
December 31, 2011 at 3:38 am
In America, the increase of religious tolerance formed solidarity around religion, so atheists — nonreligious people in general I think — are the “other” (such is my current understanding of the 2009 UMM study). Since that abstract idea of being “the other” exists for atheists, obviously negative opinions will follow. Dawkins’ idea with his Out Campaign was to take atheism out of the abstract and to make it more personal, but somehow the whole movement got sidetracked into victim politicking and political correctness. From that, there is unfortunately no return.
Surely that is very offensive to non-Christians, right?
Cultural baggage. It’s easy to realize that using “BC” and “AD” as an arbitrary division of time doesn’t necessitate a belief in Christ, so it’s one of those non-issues I choose not to wail about. Maybe I just have a thick skin. And of course, as sacha mentioned, there is the generic BCE/CE terminology for those who prefer it.
December 24, 2011 at 1:14 pm
oh, and as for my original comment to spectator, actually I am still a cunt, I just happened to be cunty to the masses, and not to her.
That is a relief – I thought I was losing my personality for a moment.
December 25, 2011 at 6:58 am
I used to be offended by the term.
Now I want to identify as a cunt, too!
Feels good to type that word w/o and asterisks!
cunt, cunt, cunt,…..CUNT!
see, I deserve that tape across my mouth 😉
December 29, 2011 at 1:48 pm
As long as she is completely serious about it, cunt is the most empowering word a woman can call herself.
December 25, 2011 at 9:00 am
OMGZ!
Raving gender traitors everywhere you look!!
Seriously, though….
spectator said:
“The feel-good mission statement regarding critical-thinking and science education is PR euphemistic nonsense.”
This is a truth that really, really bothers me.
I have a great deal of difficulty practicing critical thinking. For me, it is very hard work.
One of the reasons why I was intially drawn to the so-called skeptical community was its stated mission to practice critical thinking. I thought I could learn something. And then I stumbled upon Skepchick.org and Pharyngula, and discovered, with a great deal of disappointment and chagrin, that in fact a majority of the so-called leaders of the so-called skeptical community do not in fact actually practice critical thinking at all.
And I used to respect and like Michael Shermer. I still like some of his books. But when I witnessed him shilling for Libertarianism like a deep south baptist evangelical minister with eyes wide shut I was slam-dunked into a new reality.
I felt lost in the woods. Discarded like an empty pack of smokes. Dejected and rejected.
And then I made the mistake of actually trying to confront some of these icons with their deep hypocrisy.
Yikes. A babe in the florid flora was I.
December 25, 2011 at 9:40 am
There are plenty who use critical thinking in all aspects of their lives, you have named the worst. The other is Sam Harris, he also only uses critical thinking sporadically.
Steven Novella is one of the best.
As I said, it takes effort to go against our brain’s default. We are programmed to find patterns, and believe in ridiculous things, especially if it is comforting. Even I as a seasoned skeptic have my moments when I have to re-evaluate my position on something, and I am one who will gladly admit when I have succumbed to an irrational conclusion. I will often catch it myself, but if I don’t, I want others to tell me. That is also rare. Most people cannot admit they are wrong, and hold on to their beliefs in the face of crystal clear evidence to the contrary. Again, that is the default.
It isn’t easy to fight what comes naturally, but it’s worth it.
December 25, 2011 at 9:46 am
James Randi is another who can teach everyone a lot about critical thinking. What a hero he is. Have a look at the JREF:
http://www.randi.org/site/
December 26, 2011 at 8:17 am
Yes, Novella is usually pretty good. Most of his posts at skeptiblog are very well researched and quite interesting to read. His blindness regarding Watson on SGU is a bit discouraging, not to mention surprising.
And Randi certainly has great history. I exchanged some emails with him a few years ago.
He, like all of us, is of course occasionally fallible. He made the mistake a few years ago of incorrectly associating a word with what appeared to be some kind of anti-female associative form. I forget now what the word was, but it was very similar to the kind of incorrect thinking some feminists use when they associate the word “history” with the word “his”, and assume a completely false mysoginistic association. A perfect example of not only not using critical thinking, but not even bothering to check a word’s etymology. Anyway, Randi made this same error with some word or other, and was not called on it — that’s not what I emailed him about, though in hindsight I wish I had. We had a nice wee chat back and forth for a week or so. Very approachable fellow.
December 26, 2011 at 10:54 am
John Greg,
Of course no one is infailable, it is the ones who admit that who have my respect. I’m not sure about Novella regarding Watson. I think there is more to it that we don’t know. A friend of mine who has also listened to the SGU since the beginning, seems to think that Novella does agree with us, but that there is some other reason he keeps her on the show. Evan Bernstein clearly does not like her, as hard as he tries to not let that show. Jay Novella is biased, as he considers her a good friend, and sometimes it is difficult to have perspective when that is the case.
James Randi is the loveliest person you will ever meet. I spent quite a bit of time with him at two different TAMs, (in fact he gave me an original flying pig pin right off his lapel. I treasure it.) both he and Novella will clearly admit their mistakes, as did Hitch. We are all the flawed species of human, after all. It is the admission that makes all the difference.
After Astro pointed out that Pat Condell had his facts incorrect in his latest video he posted, I do hope that someone writes him, and that he posts a correction. He is one of my favourites, and I’d be truly disappointed if he did not admit an error.
December 25, 2011 at 10:14 am
then again, I’m also a natural blond, so I say a lot of ditsy things.
December 25, 2011 at 6:15 pm
whats with the numerous posts sacha? You trying to mimic that epic justicar meltdown?
December 26, 2011 at 7:10 am
hahahaha, I was clearly delirious.
December 26, 2011 at 2:41 am
I’m blonde, too!
Wouldn’t it be interesting to make a blond joke on the Baboon board?
How long would it take Sally Strange or that whatever Cage to point out the misogynist angle, since it’s never a blond man who’s the butt of those jokes. Always a vapid woman.
Then Julian will go all rage face.
Anyone catch Laden’s 5 part recap of Elevatorgate?
The Part I mentions Franc and friends (which I suppose means us) had some almost valid points. But he does back-flips to emphasize that it’s not an olive branch. He remains 100% Watsonista foar evah!
By the 3rd installment or so, some commenter named horsa made some points that gave them the vapors. So Laden decides to exterminate him from his blog. But leaves up all responses. Nice!
That Julian dude has anger issues!
December 26, 2011 at 11:30 am
spectator said:
“So Laden decides to exterminate him from his blog. But leaves up all responses.”
Yes, that’s pretty much SOP on Freethoughtblogs. Don’t like a commentor’s comments? Edit them; delete them; ban them. As Freefromthoughtblogger Lousy Canuck aka Jason Bieber/Thibeault opines: That which is edited, deleted, and banned only makes us wiser, more truly free, and more fully informed.
“That Julian dude has anger issues!”
Yes, he does. He has on a number of occasions actually wished for people to die in various ways including in a fire, and at his hands via a knife. He is also not exactly burdened with a surfeit of reading comprehension skills or logic facilities.
December 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Forced Merriment: The True Spirit of Christmas
Christopher Hitchens on why the Puritans found the holiday suspect—and we should, too
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110880355067656.html
December 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm
John,
It also helps to read studies of how the brain works. Can’t trust one’s eyes, or memory, which is why a jury is such a dreadful way to decide the fate of a person.
It’s quite interesting, the science of the brain, I read as much as I possibly can about it. I find the brain fascinating.
December 25, 2011 at 5:56 pm
How can you trust your impression that you read as much as you can about it, eh?
December 26, 2011 at 8:28 am
Pareidolia is, I think, one of the greatest proofs of how flawed out perceptions can be. I love encountering it. It is a learning experience.
I’m also a big Pinker fan, in particular because he is one of the few science people who more or less comes right out and says, “I don’t think I am 100% right and inerrant, but I try my best to be accurate with my research” so to speak. And his research is exhaustive.
A lot of folks on Skepchick and Skeptiblog don’t like him because he disses their primary hero S. J. Goulding. I remember quoting Pinker on Skepchick once, and was curtly informed that Pinker was, and I quote, an idiot.
It may also be that they dislike him because he sort of straddles the ideological fence when it comes to nature/nurture. Most ideologues seem to require an absolute either/or stance, and Pinker clearly posits both as playing large yet variable roles in human development.
December 26, 2011 at 9:02 am
Ahem….
Gould, not Goulding.
I had recently returned from a graze of the various lords and ladies of the flies over on Freethoughtblogs, and was, er, distracted. Got my probosciseses crossed.
December 25, 2011 at 5:15 pm
In that instance, I meant eye witness testimony, but there are other reasons why a jury is worthless in uncovering the facts.
December 25, 2011 at 6:04 pm
And yet, in some cases, they can prove superior to a judge alone, who is FORCED to decide as the law indicates, even if the culpability is totally obvious to even the proverbial “blind Freddy”.
Judges with whom I have informally discussed such restrictions imposed upon their decisions, have almost universally condemned them, bar one wise counsel who remarked that he, (yes he), would hate to be the innocent but suspect defendant who is before a marginally but increasingly senescent judge, who’s only real mental resort is to idiomatic, cultural or even dogmatic reflex.
And yes: I *am* working on Christmas day. I find that it is by far the best day in which to get computer programming work completed.
No interruptions.
If only every day were like Christmas Day!
(Apart from the bloody shops being closed all over South Australia)
December 26, 2011 at 7:13 am
True, a judge alone is no better.
I always work Christmas day, and every holiday.
December 27, 2011 at 3:30 am
That’s a great way to look on the bright side. Cup half full, etc.
I grew up in a time and place where everyone was Christian of some flavor or just didn’t do church. I don’t think I encountered anyone who couldn’t speak English in the area. My classmates were 99% Caucasian.
After graduating college, I relocated to So Calif, where I discovered Jews. Within months, I was dating a “nice Jewish boy” (or so I imagined). Apparently it’s part of my nature, because I recall asking him a lot of questions about Judaism and whether so-and-so celebrity is Jewish (this was a decade before Adam Sandler’s “Hanukkah Song”). Do you know how many Jews spend Christmas? They go to the movies! Perhaps the close proximity to the entertainment industry is factor.
Interesting how those who don’t celebrate Christmas, in either a religious or secular manner, still appreciate the break from routine, and make it something worthwhile.
December 27, 2011 at 7:30 am
Spectator,
The Jewish go out for Chinese food and to the movies in the US because nothing else is open on Christmas.
December 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm
When I NEED to buy computer parts (hard enough in SA as it is) the only place that I can be sure is open is a small shop in what we (and the residents) call “Little Saigon”.
Always open on public holidays.
Although not less than a week ago, I was urgently seeking a PCI-e sound-card of any variety, and I frantically called into this very hard-working older Vietnamese dude and, having dealt with him on numerous occasions, was sincerely alarmed to not only see him violently and viscerally flinch at my appearance through the door, but to then rush out into the back room.
It was only then that I remembered that I was, for reasons of the very sultry summer weather, and that of laundry insufficiency, I was wearing my (very old, with shoulder flashes retained) Australian Army tropical “uniform, pattern: disruptive” otherwise known as “‘Nam camo gear”.
After many unfortunate apparent flash-backs for both of us, we calmed down in at least 15~20 minutes.
I wonder if he is going to be open next Christmas?
December 28, 2011 at 7:44 am
MKG –
Just because you hate Christmas is no reason to frighten the nice Vietnamese man.
It’s quite funny, but I don’t feel that laughing is quite appropriate.
December 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm
spectator:
” ‘making something worthwhile’ is my very reason for getting out of bed in the morning!
As you seem to grasp, an absence of theism does not automatically lead to nihilism.
No bloody way.
The secure knowledge[1] that this life is all I have, spurs me to make the most of it.
In fact, I think that it may well be the reverse. Most popular monotheistic theisms[2] directly lead to abject nihilism: the robotic wish to worship a plainly malevolent and childishly needy celestial dictator ad infinitum is the worst form of nihilism, in my unhumble opinion.
__________________
[1] Go on, if you do not know my history, then feel free to ask, should you dare.
[2] And I remind the gentle reader of on such non-Western monotheism, that is nihilistic to the point of very real genocide:
Zen Buddhism.
Yes — Kamikaze suicide pilots were, and are but one such example of a non-Western manifestation of truly nihilistic monotheism.
December 29, 2011 at 5:17 am
MKG:
Before you “dare”, Spectator, please bear in mind that I completely agree with MKG’s words above, and I would assume the rest of us do as well. If you choose to participate in this discussion, I would take some time to consider it first.
December 29, 2011 at 8:30 am
I’ve been around the atheist online sub-culture long for awhile now. Even if an atheist casually mentions Jesus, an instant rebuke follows. Sure, it’s shocking the first time a Christian encounters it. Your sage advise regarding not accepting every invitation to an argument is something I learned the hard way on this topic.
Once I sat out while some atheists enthusiastically debated the historical Jesus. Without meddling in the conversation, I gained some very interesting insights about the rationale behind this position. Basically, it’s ideological.
The Nativity story is likely a legend to explain why Jesus didn’t grow up in Israel. But what’s the point of coming up with an elaborate explanation why the Messiah actually was a displaced native in order to validate the prophesy.
Surely if you wanted to make him up, why not leave him in Bethlehem. Or have him be one of Jerusalem’s home-grown?
Sigh! I have too much to do today. I’d rather just look at all the things we have in common. Believe whatever makes sense to you. I abhor when other Christians tell me my beliefs are dead wrong. That Catholics aren’t REAL Christians. It’s harsh and judgmental. People came to Jesus. He didn’t need to go knocking on doors to get an audience.The pope only goes where he’s been invited, too. The media pays attention to him. Did he mention condoms? OMG, stop the presses!!!
(Now someone will yell, PEDOPHILES! just stay tuned;)
When the god-bothers get in my face, I want to shut them up and show offense at there judgmental attitude. Telling them I’m Catholic probably isn’t as effective as saying that Jesus never existed. I mean, where are they going to go from there? Immediately disarm them and the authority of the Bible and Christ’s teaching. Under the moral value system which I ascribe, I am to treat them with dignity and respect. In the digital age, the Catholic blogs frequently remind us to strive to do this in our online encounters. Especially, atheists! Nobody flinches either. Imagine this blatant accomodationist on an atheist blog. Before Elevatorgate, this was probably the biggest feud in the community. It was a funny dance to watch people who wanted more civility attempt to assert that position without ruffling feathers. True to form, the Baboons coined their own label (never refer to your enemy with the term they identify as.)
I was a little surprised that Sarah was offended by Michael insulting the mentally ill by calling the Christians. That was a new one!
December 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm
You are an impressive woman, Spectator. It’s a pleasure to be on the same side of the gender feminism wars, along with other things we have in common. I am still shocked you consider Hitch to be a good man. You have my respect.
Embracing the quote “You don’t have to attend every argument you are invited to” has saved me from an enormous amount of anger, energy, worthless debate, misery, and frustration. It has made my life so much more worthwhile. I highly recommend it. Sometimes one’s allies and friends have a major disconnect with something important, sometimes it’s worth the fight, but, I find, quite often it is not, certainly not if the topic of discussion has nothing to do with the topic of contention.
cheers
December 29, 2011 at 5:54 pm
spectator quoth:
Well, it may have been for your set of atheists, but it most certainly NOT ideological for me, unless you count research and evidence as ‘ideology’.
For me, it is down to both a total and utter lack of evidence, combined with the absence of evidence that SHOULD exist, had Jesus even existed as a mundane preacher, with the added guard that what is usually cited as evidence is completely riddled with astonishingly self-defeating contradictions that not even a guilty 4 year old would think would pass muster.
I’ll do a large lump your homework/stalking for you:
I assiduously learned to read Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, as a path to discovering the reality of what we call the Bible, as well as a smattering of Coptic, Babylonian and Egyptian, in order to ‘find out for myself’ where the texts logically led, I feel better placed than most to state my case as forcefully as I do.
I started taking this path whilst at a Christian school, and was mildly encouraged to do so.
I started out with the assumption that Jesus was a real (if not divine) middle eastern preacher, or prophet.
I was slowly and progressively disabused of this notion the more that I studied the texts.
(And yes, I have even traveled half-way around the globe at my own expense to eyeball and translate a few ancient [2nd C and later] biblical originals, ‘in the flesh’ as it were.)
What christian believer can claim this? None, I expect, as they would cease to believe in even an historical Jesus well before this.)
Even a mundane historical Jesus is quite out of the question, in my learned opinion.
But, do the hard yards yourself if you do not trust my research, then get back to me.
I am so very very confident that if you should get even half that far, that you will no longer remain a christian.
December 30, 2011 at 5:10 am
Actually Michael, I would not expect to find Jesus no matter where I traveled. He died over 2000 years ago. What evidence did you expect to find?
I’m confused whether you concluded the Bible was not a credible historical record or whether Jesus was an actual person. As a skeptic, I would take the consensus opinion of historians specializing in antiquity (is that the correct term?). The historians who claim that no such person existed are on the fringe.
But I give you credit for not mentioning Zeitgeist! It’s bizarre how some people know that movie is bunk, except for part I.
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
December 26, 2011 at 11:10 am
I love Christmas, for its fictions as much as its feasts
Tim Minchin
http://www.newstatesman.com/fiction/2011/12/christmas-violet-real-minchin
December 30, 2011 at 2:05 am
Saying “Merry Christmas” worse than killing someone (also worse than fornication)
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644349-saying-merry-christmas-worse-than-killing-someone
December 30, 2011 at 3:25 pm
great quote Astro:
December 31, 2011 at 8:42 am
I have spent the last 24 hrs typing responses and not posting.
See, I should have heeded your advice and got some RL stuff accomplished!
Let me just mention this. Gnu atheist ideology embraces this rhetoric as truth. Religion vs. Science. Always has. Always will.
I don’t fit in to that picture, apparently.
Remember “Christians, stop saying stupid things!
Galileo wasn’t out-voted. He was executed (by the Church).”
Poe’s Law?
Her worldview couldn’t allow for as much as a cursory fact check. She made a freaking video! Sitting at a computer. Google right there in her face.
I doubt she would have had a clue that she might be wrong if one of her fellow gnu’s didn’t inform her. This was in the context of a conversation with Christians. That makes them wrong, automatically. No need to check.
I suppose she still believes that the church executed scientists. Galileo just didn’t happen to be one of them.
right?
I mean, how could I actually question the meme?
Astro: “are you really disputing that?”
Yes, I am.
start here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
When you discover what an obnoxious, closed-minded asshole he actually was it’s obvious he was no victim or martyr. I imagine, he’d face libel charges in today’s society. Since there was no law stopping his defamation of character, the theology trump card got played.
He was placed on house arrest in a palace. Free to correspond and receive visits with and from the outside world. Ask his daughter.
The archives on the discussion page are revealing. The article was relentlessly pounded by historical revisionists with an ax to grind. Now it’s considered one of their highest quality articles.
In a way, Galileo’s story reminds me of how scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC are treated now. Politics and scientific “consensus” still play rough.
dang it! There goes another hour of my life!
I love you guys, though!
December 31, 2011 at 5:21 pm
LOL.. didnt see that one coming spectator. lets just agree to disagree on this, in the interest of saving us plenty of time spent on long posts, esp as this discussion must have been had on the internet many times before. I will do just one post, and you can have the last word if you want. I did a quick lookup to find some informed debates on this issue, and found an interesting christian take on this.
Its somewhat informative, but:
1) it doesnt understand what “technology” is (a way of making tools.. in the past largely driven by trial-and-error knowledge, and in modern times heavily influenced by scientific knowledge), what “natural philosophy” is (purely materialistic speculations on nature, esp cause-and-effect speculations), and what “modern science” is. And thus confuses one for the other, and uses “science” in the very general sense to claim everything as scientific progress. I was reading a book on the “History of Science” a while ago, and the first thing it does is deal with this differentiation.
Of course the church was happy to fund technological progress. There’s no conflict, and hence no problem funding.
Natural philosophy as birthed and practiced in Hellenic Greece and the Hellenistic world came very close to modern science.. for e.g they made intricate mathematical models of the solar system to explain observations, and even make predictions. But Natural philosophy also had several things that the church wouldnt like.. for e.g epicureanism. Therefore in the early middle ages, the church didnt fund Natural philosophy any further, and instead focused on funding theology. (Islam also did the same thing, once the “authorities” realized what Natural philosophy entailed, although they had a few centuries of progress prior to that).
I am not very familiar with the history of modern science, so have to rely mainly on contemporary opposition. such as to evolution. Interestingly, the very paper that the Christian blog touts actually accepts that Galileo issue was ALSO driven by conflict due to scientific findings.
Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.
January 1, 2012 at 4:40 am
Hee hee!
I get the last word?
“and yet, it moves”
The Wikipedia article expressed skepticism as to whether he really said this. But considering his pattern of always getting in the last word, I find it entirely probable.
December 31, 2011 at 5:52 pm
This discussion reminded me of a wonderful piece on the discovery of Lucretius’s ‘On the nature of things’. There’s an accompanying video at bigthink.com/ideas/40907 (URL stripped to avoid mod-hell).
Interesting quote in there?
January 2, 2012 at 2:08 am
Epicurians are actually quite ascetic. They are wrongly accused.
January 2, 2012 at 2:04 am
All:
I know I am a good human. I cook food that is delicious for my nieces and nephews – that their ma says they should stop eating so much validates me.
I feel complete. That simple thing is enough. Can any of the baboons claim the same? I think not. I give pleasure to my friends. They do not. Assholes.
Myers, you are a loser. Have you ever granted another basic happiness? No, you haven’t.
Fucking loser. Get cancer you asshole. Hitch shouldn’t have.
January 2, 2012 at 6:07 am
Did you poison the food, Franc?
January 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm
He fixes deep-fried cunt burgers.