Procrustes's Comments

Atheist Revolution : The Day I Became an Atheist Activist

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:29:17 +0000

Although "atheist activist" is correct, the term future atheists, free from the oppression of a church state, will use to refer to you is "Hero."

Atheist Revolution : Businesses Offering Discounts to Christians

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:50:30 +0000

I wrote about something similar a few years ago regarding my intention not to spend money at places that supported churches and other religious affiliates. Regardless of the applicable civil rights laws, I'm honestly not sure how I feel about private establishments that choose to give discounts to certain customers. Obviously there's a slippery slope (e.g., what if it's based on race, gender, etc.?), and people have won cases based on any number of discriminatory practices by companies. I can understand, though, the combination of capitalizing upon an aspect of American life (post-service shopping) and the right to run a business without excessive government interference. However, I can also see how terrible an effect this sort of practice could have if done by a larger company, conglomerate, or monopoly. In any event, I dislike anything that tries to increase religious following, thereby decreasing rationality. If you're interested in what I wrote, it's at http://www.stateofprotest.com/morality/dont-buy-t...

Atheist Revolution : Idiot of the Week: Bill Donahue (Again)

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:35:29 +0000

"When you believe something stupid and insist on sharing your belief with everyone..." "sharing" seems a bit weak there. Do we have good verb for "shoving a religion down everyone's throats as a way of life, and strong-arming the government and society into quashing all resistance"? If not, we should invent one.

Deep Thoughts : The cake is a lie

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:17:13 +0000

http://www.stateofprotest.com/wp-content/uploads/... Better version: http://www.stateofprotest.com/wp-content/uploads/... Yes, I've played Portal through about three times now. Wicked game, and a great comparison to religion, Mojoey.

Deep Thoughts : A Christian blog on the Atheist Blogroll?

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:47:29 +0000

Well, if I had merely said "no," then inevitably someone would have replied, "But that's not fair, wah." Wah. Anyway, I think it's helpful to have a list of good reasons and arguments presented by rational people, as has been excellently done above by your devoted commenters.

Deep Thoughts : A Christian blog on the Atheist Blogroll?

Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:15:50 +0000

1. Would a "Christian Blogroll" accept an atheist blog? Likely not. (Yes, that's a bit of a tu quoque, but I think it might help to define purpose - what's the purpose of an atheist blogroll, and what's the purpose of The Atheist Blogroll?) 2. Precedent/floodgate/slippery slope argument: Once you break the rules you've established for one, does that mean others will follow? Will the rules steadily become weaker, less enforced, irrelevant? Will this become a "Whatever" blogroll, "as long as you mention 'atheist' somewhere in your blog"? 3. Argument from establishment: A blog run by a Christian is a blog run by a theist is a blog run by someone who is, by definition, the polar opposite of an atheist. Putting that blog on an atheist blogroll steers atheists and people who want to visit atheist blogs to, instead, a Christian's blog that merely allows chats about atheism. It's kind of like establishing a secular charity and then indicating to its members that it will be giving a portion of all donations to the Catholic church. Even if the church does something good with the money, the setup is wrong in principle. I honestly don't want to share this establishment with a Christian, regardless of how "fair" he may be. If he doesn't like it, he can become an atheist like the rest of the rational world. 4. Argument from minority: We atheists are members of the most shunned minority in history, and much of what we do is to contest with the imbalanced influence of Christians in the U.S. It's not utterly useless to share the stage with Christians in a debate, but when Christians already have the ear of the government, the hearts of the people, and the money from tax exemptions, what purpose does it serve our cause to give them a little bit more? If this were a "rational thinkers" blogroll, or something ambiguous with regard to theism, I wouldn't be making these arguments. It's not, however. It's an "atheist" blogroll, and we need as much atheist support as we can get. 5. Argument from numbers and pride. I don't believe pride is a sin, and when I look at the swelling membership of the blogroll, I feel proud that the atheist community has an effective online connection. Add a Christian to that members list, and it nullifies the effect of "here's a list of blogs run by atheists -- see, we're many and we're strong." I'd hate the blogroll to have to run a disclaimer, "oh, except for that one Christian we let in because he lets atheists chat on his blog; he's nice, though, you'd like him." 6. Social club argument: We're not getting government money for this. It's a privately run, privately funded operation. There's no good reason to let someone in who clearly does not fit the membership requirements or spirit of the endeavor. Would the DNC allow a Republican member? 7. Elitist argument: I consider myself an elitist, at least to an extent. Perhaps I'm a wannabe elitist, but my point here is that I sincerely want to see Christians fail. I want to see irrationality wiped clean from this planet, from the public schools, government, and all facets of life. I want people to embrace reason, and I want people who do to be placed on pillars and admired. Dawkins, Stenger, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Condell, and others just like them are people who deserve to be praised and admired (no, not worshiped) for their good works and courage, and, most of all, for their rationality. And, like the selfish person I am, I want others to think of me in positive ways, at least with regard to rationality, and I want to know and associate with others worthy of respect for their attempt to infuse the world with a bit of reason. I cannot bring myself to acknowledge or respect in that manner a person who still calls himself Christian. (There's a different level of respect for a Christian who does good things, but it's not the same). And I believe this blogroll should be reserved for those who do deserve that higher level of respect that comes with intellectual honesty and integrity.

Atheist Revolution : Celebrating the Win Does Not Always Mean Deriding the Loser

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:33:45 +0000

Heheh. I'm surprised no one else got it.

Atheist Revolution : Celebrating the Win Does Not Always Mean Deriding the Loser

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:28:40 +0000

Yes, perhaps it was the dirt upon their shoes that gave them that reminder. Or perhaps it was their attempt to join him in his grave that shook up the fluvial deposit. I guess we'll never know.

Atheist Revolution : Celebrating the Win Does Not Always Mean Deriding the Loser

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:23:18 +0000

Vjack, First, thank you for your second thought (going on to read the post). :) Second, I find it interesting that your response is fundamentally a rationalization, justifying your actions by claiming they're just "human" responses, and implying that you're not responsible for those reactions for that very reason. I'm not disagreeing, but don't we rational humans strive to overcome base instinct in favor of reason and altruism? I'm certainly not an accommodationist, but I do like to try to examine my behavior in light of what I see as good and bad in others, and I think it's disturbing when Christians mock non-believers or people of other religions when they think they've achieved some victory. I just don't want to put myself in that camp. But here I am. Perhaps you're right about it being just a human reaction, but I'd like to qualify that. When the abortion doctor, George Tiller, was murdered, a number of Christians stood up and said, effectively, yay. And they genuinely felt positive about it. I found that disgusting, as did many others, including religious people. But what happened the other day when the anti-abortion protester Jim Pouillon was shot and killed? If you're right about the human reaction, pro-choice people would have cheered a bit inside, and perhaps openly, right? I'm not sure that happened. I think the pro-choice people would view his or any death as a terrible tragedy. Of course, we can't be sure about every one of them, but for the most part, can you actually imagine a majority of rational pro-choicers being genuinely happy that the anti-abortion protester was murdered? Perhaps that is the case. I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we chose to, we could learn to react differently to bad things happening to others. I do think, though, that there's a distinction between something as bad as murder and a court victory based on a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. And I can see that you've made that distinction, choosing to view a victory dance as a celebration of a just victory under the law rather than a defeat or punishment for those who were essentially breaking the law (or just acting unconstitutionally). I'd like to see, though, what you think about a situation not so black and white. Like the abortion/anti-abortion example I made. Thanks again.

Atheist Revolution : Celebrating the Win Does Not Always Mean Deriding the Loser

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:01:43 +0000

It's truly hard to believe the sediment changed that quickly. I mean, he was only in the ground a few hours, right?

Atheist Revolution : Atheist Bloggers, Take Care of Yourselves

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:12:40 +0000

I play Left4Dead and pretend the zombies are really right-wing Republicans and religious fundies. Boomer = Rush Limbaugh Tank = Rush Limbaugh on steroids Witch = A mix of Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, and Michelle Malkin Smoker = Bill O'Reilly Hunter = Glenn Beck in a Venom suit zombie horde = not much different from megachurchgoers Actually, I'm only kidding. The zombies are much more life-like and actually have rather pleasing personalities once you get to know them. (Imma get a lot of shit for this comment, aren't I?) Honestly, playing games, watching a movie, getting OUTSIDE, are all good ways of staving off the inevitable madness.

Deep Thoughts : Atheist Blogroll Photography Contest

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:34:33 +0000

Got any entries yet?

Atheist Revolution : Organizing Atheists: The MoveOn.org Model

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:52:54 +0000

I think they're ultimately parallel goals, and, as you suggest, complementary. Where I saw the similarities (and what I considered overlap) was that both goals required a database of members of the non-believer community. Because of that overlap, I was thinking that instead of trying to accomplish that aspect of our goals separately, we could combine efforts in the "gathering them all together under one umbrella" goal, while the "get everyone to announce to the world / brand establishment" goal is developed and applied as essentially a subroutine. Of course, part of my vision was to be more inclusive, so that might be an issue. So, I take back my comment about redundancy and folding, and suggest we talk about that foundation (that apparently mimics others who have tried, in my opinion unsuccessfully, to unite people like us), and see if it would be effective for us to be using the same member base platform. If I sound loopy, it's because I haven't yet woken up.

Atheist Revolution : Organizing Atheists: The MoveOn.org Model

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:52:21 +0000

Vjack, Considering the group I made, are we being redundant? If so, yours has a much better chance of success, and I'll just fold mine and send what I have to you.

South Dakota Humanist : In The Name Of The Children

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:50:14 +0000

You rock. You just totally made up for anything negative you think you've done.

South Dakota Humanist : In The Name Of The Children

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:34:21 +0000

So, what do you think of the underlying issue of abstract nude sculptures? The elements regarding children vs parents vs pta are pretty much the same (i.e., the children aren't making a big deal of it, the parents are). Do you agree with me that the fundamental issue is exactly the same as the DNA issue (despite the social issue, the "ick" factor)? Basically, I want to know why so many so-called rational thinkers support the notion that people have the right not to be offended with regard to nudity. What's the fundamental difference between nudity and dna?

South Dakota Humanist : In The Name Of The Children

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:15:26 +0000

Re: Update, No chastising needed. The whole point of the exercise is to show how believable religious stupidity is (thus Poe's Law), and also, in this case, to test self-proclaimed skeptics and rationalists to see if they create or perpetuate a distinction between DNA and nudity (i.e., what's natural is natural, why do we accept nudity as "obscene" when we don't accept DNA as obscene?).

Atheist Revolution : Atheism Does Not Require Certainty

Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:29:59 +0000

It's the "I know" vs "I reasonably doubt" non-issue. I reasonably doubt the existence of a god or gods because of the lack of evidence. That is and should be good enough, and it equates to "I know." In other words, I've examined the available evidence, and made a decision based on that evidence and my own reasoning that god does not exist. Taking it a step further to challenging "certainty" is wholly irrelevant, a waste of time, and a red herring meant to distract from real, solvable issues. The problem arises when a believer tries to trap a nonbeliever by bringing in an artificial sense of doubt about the nonbeliever's doubt. The believer assumes that lack of a declaration of certainty equates to a weakness in the argument against god, and therefore is evidence for god. That's nonsense. Nonbelievers shouldn't even respond to certainty questions. We're reasonably certain about applying evidence, but we rationals are always open and willing to reevaluate our positions based on new evidence. That doesn't mean that if we encounter a quantum-level gravitational fluctuation that we immediately discount the entire theory of gravity or question our "certainty" that gravity does, indeed, exist. In the same token, when something apparently unexplained happens, we don't immediately throw away our science books and assume that God did it.

Atheist Revolution : Personal Displays of Religious Symbols: A Double-Standard

Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:35:28 +0000

Except that the concept of common sense can be construed to mean sense shared, which, in this case, it is not. It also doesn't highlight the fundamental difference from which all the stupidity stems -- belief in a deity. Well, the essay does, but the term itself as an allusion would be lost on the vast majority of Americans. I think we'd benefit from something that says proudly and boldly: "I'm not like you, because I don't believe in sky daddy, and that's okay. But more importantly, everyone you see with this sticker also, like me, does not believe. Now give us some fucking respect." Hell, if I could put that into four words, I would. [edit: and, of course, we're already wading into the quagmire that vjack warned about -- differing opinions on our own side. We don't have the luxury of nodding assent to each others' "Praise Jesus" or "God bless." We have to think independently, and that is, perhaps, our bane.]

Atheist Revolution : Personal Displays of Religious Symbols: A Double-Standard

Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:30:36 +0000

I like it. I'll put it into the pot. Thanks for the idea, and yes, it's quite American. You know, I think a variant of that might actually be good, too: "In Reason I Trust" Thoughts?