In response to GodTube, and problems with YouTube (votebotting, flagbotting, etc) resulting in harassment and banning (with subsequent reinstatement), there is now NoGodTube.
[Personally, I would suggest atheists, agnostics, and others interested in using the site, also put their videos on YouTube, but encourage linking and embedding to NoGodTube. This way, we still have a voice in how the YouTube community continues to evolve, and we also have a place where our videos will be easy to find and available to anyone interested.]
So, in honor of the new site, I give you the following discussion between Blair Scott and Leonard Adams, recorded in February of 2008, about Black Atheists.
/>
Parts 2 and 3 (along with the URLs to all three) are below the fold...
/>
/>
http://nogodtube.com/play.php?vid=128
http://nogodtube.com/play.php?vid=130
http://nogodtube.com/play.php?vid=131
Very interesting talk. Blair is a lot of things- Director, Founder, User of Shitty English Accents- leave him some comments, reviews, and feedback.
Read More...
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hate and the Art of Oppression
I learned hate. When I was a child, my mother always commented on how sweet I was; nothing unique about it, most mothers think their children are sweet- most children are, in my experience. In school, I was poor, geeky, gangly, unpopular, quiet, smart, and generally an outsider. The other children saw to it that I became intimately aware of my differences, my flaws, and my shortcomings. I was given to the wolves, and the wolves taught me rage, injustice, pain, and disgust.
This is not a unique story. Lord of the Flies, and countless other stories, songs, movies, books, and lessons, have taught us all that these are not instructions unknown to previous generations. If nothing else, we share with all other humans our indoctrination in violence and hate at the hands of one another.
Something about us seeks to defeat the different, conquer the unknown, whether it be by naming it, or killing it. There are lectures by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the neurobiology of primate sexuality, where he talks about Composite faces. It turns out that the more individuals used to make a composite face, the more attractive the face is rated during testing. Sapolsky says we seek out others that are not so similar to us that they might be family, but not so different that they are of a different species. Our most basic instincts- to mate- are wired for "normal", "average", "sameness", why should anyone be surprised most aspects of our culture mimic that compulsive yearning?
Atheists scare people. They are seen as immoral, untrustworthy, degenerate, different, and unknowable. The majority of people in the world profess some religion- even some people that call themselves "Atheists" still speak of spirituality. The scared, mistrustful, masses react with aggression to those they see as fundamentally opposed to their "way of life".
Atheists make up as much as 12, or even 15, percent of the population (depending on how you define it and which surveys {like this or this} you look at). We are a part of this country, and we are not to be feared. Anyone who knows 10 people knows someone who would describe themselves as non-religious- whether they use a term like "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Secular", or something else.
Hate is a dangerous thing. It can be useful, spurring someone to do more than they might otherwise. Unfortunately, that can mean the difference between failure and accomplishment, or arguing and killing. Fear, biology, and tradition tell us to fear the invaders from over the hill- after all, they are who will come in the night to steal our mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, mules, and food. This fear, often without any conscious effort, easily turns into hate; hate we pass on to our children, who pass it on to their peers.
In 1984, the year Dan White was released from prison, there was a documentary about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to hold an elected position in the United States. That Documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk is current up at HULU. It is a staggering example of what can happen when people come together, despite their differences, and the tragedy one hateful person can inflict upon a community. It is a lesson, and a warning.
For Atheists out there, pay close attention to the speech Harvey Milk is giving after Proposition 6 is voted down (at roughly 47 minutes in).
[For those who couldn't hear it, what Jerry Brown says to President Carter is "Reagan already endorsed it, so I think it's safe."]
"A lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and now we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person MUST come out!
"As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends- if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in.
"And, once they realize that we are- indeed- their children, that we are- indeed- everywhere; Every Myth, Every Lie, Every Innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all. And once, once, you do, you will feel so much better!"
For Atheists and the non-religious, replace "gay"- in that speech- with the word you use to describe yourself.
Don't let the cycle continue, don't allow the fear and the hate to thrive- like they so readily do, in the darkness of secrecy: stand up and be counted. Singly we are but one or two, here or there; Together we are everyone, United we are everywhere.
I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an aspiring writer, and a person. My Name is Thomas Delaney Hand, I am an Atheist and a Skeptic.
Read More...
This is not a unique story. Lord of the Flies, and countless other stories, songs, movies, books, and lessons, have taught us all that these are not instructions unknown to previous generations. If nothing else, we share with all other humans our indoctrination in violence and hate at the hands of one another.
Something about us seeks to defeat the different, conquer the unknown, whether it be by naming it, or killing it. There are lectures by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the neurobiology of primate sexuality, where he talks about Composite faces. It turns out that the more individuals used to make a composite face, the more attractive the face is rated during testing. Sapolsky says we seek out others that are not so similar to us that they might be family, but not so different that they are of a different species. Our most basic instincts- to mate- are wired for "normal", "average", "sameness", why should anyone be surprised most aspects of our culture mimic that compulsive yearning?
Atheists scare people. They are seen as immoral, untrustworthy, degenerate, different, and unknowable. The majority of people in the world profess some religion- even some people that call themselves "Atheists" still speak of spirituality. The scared, mistrustful, masses react with aggression to those they see as fundamentally opposed to their "way of life".
Atheists make up as much as 12, or even 15, percent of the population (depending on how you define it and which surveys {like this or this} you look at). We are a part of this country, and we are not to be feared. Anyone who knows 10 people knows someone who would describe themselves as non-religious- whether they use a term like "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Secular", or something else.
Hate is a dangerous thing. It can be useful, spurring someone to do more than they might otherwise. Unfortunately, that can mean the difference between failure and accomplishment, or arguing and killing. Fear, biology, and tradition tell us to fear the invaders from over the hill- after all, they are who will come in the night to steal our mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, mules, and food. This fear, often without any conscious effort, easily turns into hate; hate we pass on to our children, who pass it on to their peers.
In 1984, the year Dan White was released from prison, there was a documentary about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to hold an elected position in the United States. That Documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk is current up at HULU. It is a staggering example of what can happen when people come together, despite their differences, and the tragedy one hateful person can inflict upon a community. It is a lesson, and a warning.
For Atheists out there, pay close attention to the speech Harvey Milk is giving after Proposition 6 is voted down (at roughly 47 minutes in).
[For those who couldn't hear it, what Jerry Brown says to President Carter is "Reagan already endorsed it, so I think it's safe."]
"A lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and now we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person MUST come out!
"As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends- if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in.
"And, once they realize that we are- indeed- their children, that we are- indeed- everywhere; Every Myth, Every Lie, Every Innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all. And once, once, you do, you will feel so much better!"
For Atheists and the non-religious, replace "gay"- in that speech- with the word you use to describe yourself.
Don't let the cycle continue, don't allow the fear and the hate to thrive- like they so readily do, in the darkness of secrecy: stand up and be counted. Singly we are but one or two, here or there; Together we are everyone, United we are everywhere.
I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an aspiring writer, and a person. My Name is Thomas Delaney Hand, I am an Atheist and a Skeptic.
Read More...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Skepticism, Atheism, and New Keyboards
Giving the new keyboard a whirl- let's hope the old keyboard was the problem, and not the port...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Kinder, Gentler, Atheists
Christopher Hitchens has described himself as an anti-theist. Richard Dawkins has ascribed to the label, at times, too. They are often described as "The New Atheists", those two along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. "The New Atheists" are characterized by being "out", proud, and open about their atheism; which a lot of people on the religious front take to mean "aggressive", "indignant", etc.
Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.
Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).
The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.
But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...
I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:
Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.
The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.
Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.
Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.
There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?
Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?
Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.
This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.
This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.
Read More...
Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.
Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).
The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.
But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...
I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:
Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.
The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.
Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.
Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.
There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?
Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?
Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.
This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.
This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.
Read More...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Coming Out
There's a lot of questions, comments, and philosophy about how to let everyone know you're smart, well connected with reality, and not gonna say grace this year.
When you're at dinner, and Uncle Kiddietoucher starts to pray, instead of cringing as his spittle moistens the overcooked turkey, try any of the following:
* Jump up, smack someone sitting beside you, and yell "Fuck You, God-Lover, I is for REAL!" and once they all look at you, try expanding your thesis: "Seriously, I'm all about reality, and that reality doesn't include any god, gods, or goddesses. Instead of attempting to poison my ability to rationally and objectively view the world, how 'bout you shut your shit spewer and join in, with me, living in the here and now?"
* Join with others, don't sit back, come out as a non-theist (whichever terminology you enjoy), and show your solidarity. Read More...
When you're at dinner, and Uncle Kiddietoucher starts to pray, instead of cringing as his spittle moistens the overcooked turkey, try any of the following:
* Jump up, smack someone sitting beside you, and yell "Fuck You, God-Lover, I is for REAL!" and once they all look at you, try expanding your thesis: "Seriously, I'm all about reality, and that reality doesn't include any god, gods, or goddesses. Instead of attempting to poison my ability to rationally and objectively view the world, how 'bout you shut your shit spewer and join in, with me, living in the here and now?"
* Join with others, don't sit back, come out as a non-theist (whichever terminology you enjoy), and show your solidarity. Read More...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
