Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition. (more…)

Skepchick issue notice to Richard Dawkins

There has been an appalling amount of nonsense spewing out of the Center for Inquiry (CFI)/ Committee For Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) since some inner turmoil saw the less than amicable departure of founder Paul Kurtz.

The full story will probably never be public knowledge, but the popular reasoning seems to focus on Kurtz’s known attitudes of accommodationism as regards to religion clashing with those of successor Ronald A. Lindsay1 – who, allegedly, has definite anti-theistic attitudes and fondness for superficial irrelevancies such as the Blasphemy Challenge2.

The problem with this “official” version is that it doesn’t really have any reflection in reality. Ever since this changing of the guard, CFI / CSI have been churning out a pretty steady stream of accommodationist nonsense, far in excess of anything that preceded it. Perhaps the pinnacle of this idiocy was from CSI fellow Gollum and his now incurably pathogenic don’t be a dick sermon-on-the-mount3, but it is far from the only example. Other notable outbursts include one from Michael De Dora on the CFI site itself – (more…)

What is lost in all the noise surrounding the Watson circus is that none of this is really an argument of girls versus boys. Some of the most vociferous and irrational voices in the Watsonista apologist camp are male1, and conversely, some of the most coherent critics are female (and they are legion).

Similarly, claiming it’s all about misogyny is also a red herring – it’s merely a convenient window for the misandrist blog industry to go into opportunist overdrive (it’s bigger than crassmass), and those that disagree with this point are politely asked to refer to their dictionaries (hint ladies: it has something to do with the word “hatred” which is not the same thing as “faux pas”).

No, what the issues ultimately boil down to are ones that are a girls only affair – the continued argument between gender and equity (or liberal) feminism, and Elevator Guy is just the meat in the sandwich. This subtlety is lost on Watsonistas – I have yet to see even one that acknowledges the dichotomy, or even understands what it is. Around the film that forms near the bottom of the barrel attacking women that dare criticise Watson is gibberish like this –

inside the mind of a gender traitor (more…)

“Politics have no relation to morals”

— Niccolo Machiavelli

“There is nothing more fearful than a barbaric slave-class which
has learnt to regard its existence as an injustice and is preparing to take revenge not just for itself but for all generations.”

— Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy

.

The more they carry on, the more they sound like white puritans a century ago whining about those filthy blacks. It’s just “socially redeeming” hatred. And nothing more.

(or, the “don’t be a dick” redux)

(or, losing faith in atheism)

Accusations of ad hominem get used way too much nowadays, usually by folks that have no idea what it actually means and use accusations of ad hominem attack as an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card when somebody makes them look (and feel) stupid; or when concocting spurious complaints of abuse and harassment in order to silence dissenting opinion that’s torn them a new one in online forums (by addressing their argument and NOT their person, a critical subtlety beyond their grasp). As of late, it has become a nauseatingly prevalent practice on atheist forums in particular (like the ones that may have just spammed you to get your vote here). (more…)