gdp's Comments

Atheist Revolution : Christian Belief in Demons

Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:53:23 +0000

Setting aside the question of what believing in nonsense signifies, I see a third goal, which is to be able to dismiss ideas with the benefit of avoiding any analysis. Fundies tend to be lazy thinkers, and one of their primary tactics in any debate is to dismiss, subtly or overtly, anything that disagrees with their agenda. Attributing something to demons ends all discussion. Another point I'd like to make is a question: What does one do when (supposedly) encountering demons? I have an anecdote from years ago when I was on hard times and signed up for a Christian program at a local homeless mission in order to get food and a decent place to sleep. My "counselor" -- he did have credentials of a sort -- insisted that humanism was demonic. Totally off the cuff, I pointed out that I'd studied the Bible, and apparently Jesus won in those stories, so even if someone is a Christian, there is no point in worrying about demons. "Get thee behind me," you know. At any rate, apparently the only solution to believing one has encountered a demon is to redouble one's faith-effort. Believe harder. Ridiculous, all of it.

Atheist Revolution : Christian Belief in Demons

Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:51:28 +0000

Atheist Revolution : Idiot of the Week: Mike Huckabee

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:51:57 +0000

Of course Huckabee's an idiot of this week and all others, as are many people, famous and otherwise. It's because they have no training, no intellectual rigor, and hence no honesty. They have very little information on issues about which they spew because they are not scholars of anything and never have been. This is the mindless mob we are talking about. The people who think they have a thought. Message to the mob: If you don't understand the difference between opinion and argument, and don't care to, you're going to be an idiot. No way around it. If you think evidence and data are not important, you're going to be an idiot. You will have no discernment and you won't be able to make decisions that are consistently helpful. By contrast, the world itself operates relatively consistently, but if you don't take pains to understand, you will be hit in the face with one thing after another, all seeming equal, and all equally negative. Go figure, or something, maybe put yourself out of our misery. You say it takes all kinds? No, there ARE all kinds, but IT doesn't TAKE them. The situation of the gay-marriage justices in Iowa, for example, shows this up perfectly, and these are the kind of activist judges (as if we could have justices that didn't act) the Huckster (love that term; just heard it) is "against." I use the scare quotes around "against" because it is a very low-level, sort of visceral opposition that these people have. It's not logic, not argument, not evidence. It's "Teh Gayz (TM) are getting married in Iowa! Gah! Kill them!" Huckabee is what the principal in my grade school used to call the people who egged on the kids who were fighting: agitator. He agitates just by puking his black/white "analysis" all over the obsequious MSM. He is the guy supplying the pitchforks to the locals storming Frankenstein's castle. Everybody knows the monster was the hero. Sad.

Atheist Revolution : Scolded for Not Attending Church

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:21:10 +0000

Yeah, this very often works. If someone wonders why I don't pray out loud with them, it's because I am not a Xian (or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, etc.) Sometimes I just say I'm not religious. All of the above are even true!

Atheist Revolution : Scolded for Not Attending Church

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:17:23 +0000

Bryn and AegisLinnear, you have caught me on something I hadn't elaborated, and I think I understand what you are saying. I don't agree but I see that it may be more borderline than I thought. Offense is not like fear, on a very basic level. If something comes near my eyes, I flinch, regardless of what it is. It may be that your offense reaction to some content seems immediate and unavoidable (and mine certainly does sometimes), but it is not. For something to be as complex as offense, the reaction had to have been constructed ahead of time and waiting to be used, because the content of an offense is not predictable. (However the act of offending is, like the event producing basic fear, an event necessarily without content in itself, but it may have some cues which produce natural and immediate reactions.) So I flinch when something comes near my eye because I react faster than the time it would take to understand that it was a feather, and harmless. I would also flinch if someone got in my face and started screaming. But in addition offense depends on its content to be offensive, so necessarily requires processing. Not totally sure where I'm going with this; I have to think about it some more, but your points are well-taken.

Atheist Revolution : Scolded for Not Attending Church

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:53:04 +0000

I don't see any problem with saying it's a waste of time for me to go to church. It may be on the edge of harassment rules, but I think generally speaking only sexual harassment of this borderline nature would qualify for disciplinary action, but I don't know your company's specific policies. (One year I hired both an orthodox Jew and a Palestinian refugee from Jordan. These were educated, high-tech guys, but even so, early on I had to explain the rules about how they should be talking, especially for the Palestinian, but it turned out to be all kosher, so to speak.:) We had to fire a guy who was getting all wack and sending out anti-Arab e-mails with bible prophecies during the aftermath of 9/11.) I might feel it's a waste of time to go to my friend's son's local football game, or to watch soap operas, or whatever. Maybe it's kind of dickish for me to lash out mildly, but when people harbor and nourish emotional attachments to things, which is what religious faith is, they set themselves up for being offended, usually by accident on the part of the offender, as we have seen. Some people get very offended, maybe to the point of violence, if you insult the local team, or if you refuse to say the pledge of allegiance or something. Being offended is a choice, as is how you react once you feel you have been offended. Too many of these jackasses are wandering around taking umbrage, apparently because they can't think of anything else. (Oops! Did I harass someone?)

Atheist Revolution : Maddow vs. Stewart: They're Both Right

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:55:26 +0000

vjack pointed out:

Stewart's low point, which wasn't nearly as low or as disturbing to those of us who value fact-based news, concerned the debacle of his rally. [emphasis mine]

I want to make a comment about the rhetoric we (non-theist antagonist-types) use, and vjack highlights my point. When media personalities go on record, that is to say their activities become public information, which is their intent BTW , that is a good thing. This is the essence of free public discourse. Whether or not you agree with Stewart's or Maddow's ideas, or tone, or choice of forum, or analysis, or career-enhancing choices, or consequences, or anything, BOTH of these "media personalities" are sticking to their guns in their own media-ways, and the result is the lively debate we may be having here and are are having elsewhere. I am willing to say I admire my ideological enemies when they, likewise, so obviously stick to their guns. That's when real debate happens. How many times and how passionately have we argued against those who would say: You are not allowed to say this, it's disrespectful, or, You are being too "strident"; or the ultimate lie from those who want to control the discussion, which is, You are not allowed to say what you say if I don't like it or feel like responding to it just now, because I'm a media-guy. I think we should not desire to control the discussion, except that we should: We should control the discussion such that everyone gets to discuss.

Atheist Revolution : Christian Calls Islam a Superstition

Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:48:11 +0000

So true. A friend of mine watches TV preachers, mostly the young turks -- Osteen and some other guy, Prince, I think -- and I was fascinated with their similarity to the old ones, bible in one hand, swaggering around excitedly. There have always been two ways to preach: Fire and Brimstone, and Good News (gospel). I guess there is a third, the didactic version, but that's rare in public preaching. At any rate, the Xian bible has not changed substantially since the KJV, and that was a substantive change from the Vulgate, substantive because it was a translation, and different languages conceptualize differently. Of course, the Vulgate bible was a (single, there were others) translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, so more built in substantive changes. (Obviously I can't go into detail here -- there has been scholarship on this dating back to the beginning, available for anyone to research: start with bible exegesis. The only thing that has changed since the KJV is the messenger, so I would argue the only difference between Osteen and,say, Billy Graham is that they are each a unique human being with unique ways of expressing things. They are different, but they are both guys swaggering around with the bible in hand, telling us, either sweetly or aggressively, that we're going to suffer for eternity if we don't give them money and otherwise do what they tell us, because they claim to know the word of their god, either implicitly or explicitly. Interestingly, that message also got through in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (and Arabic if you want, later). Luther was the most famous conscientious objector for those of us badgered by Xianism all the time, but his legacy was more of the same. EVERYBODY has the True Faith (TM) apparently, but it is obviously not more important than oxygen. It's not even more important than Halloween candy-corn, if that's all you have to eat. :)

Atheist Revolution : Christian Calls Islam a Superstition

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:41:10 +0000

Not just you. These are the WTF moments we all know and love.

Atheist Revolution : Christian Calls Islam a Superstition

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:15:21 +0000

Something in me wants to let them fight it out. My boy''s magazine article Forty predictions that will come true by 2050 predicts the next world war will begin in space. Sounds good to me right now. There are two problems I see with that scenario: 1) The war started in space would undoubtedly spread to earth. They are battling here and now and there is lots of collateral damage; and 2) I can't overcome my compassion for those who are, um, less capable mentally, or truly mentally ill, so I could not encourage them to put themselves and their families in harm's way over something so fucking stupid. Man I'm angry this morning. Maybe it's the Oklahoma Sharia law thing. The main reason I am into Gnu Atheism is I believe we have to stop legitimizing this shit. No respect for stupid ideas. Be nice if you feel nice, but remember: ridicule and vocal anger can be valid tactics. Attack (in legal ways) the attackers. Be vocal -- your speech is free also. The strategy is the same as Grant's in the American Civil War: Engage your enemy, and keep him under constant pressure. We have the advantage: reason and the brains to use it. And it's good to see you Zenlite!

Its my Right to be Left of the Center : Irony, karma or payback?

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:13:14 +0000

Man this brings back memories. My dad had cirrhosis, was unconscious for two months, in the hospital for four more, and when he got out he was never right again because of damage from chemical imbalances. He drove (!) 45 mph wherever he was -- freeways, residential, school zones. Asshole, too, obviously; died in '89 from a fall in a grocery store before I needed to take any action about his driving. I had already divorced myself emotionally from my family for a number of reasons, and adopted/invented new ones, so I had very little interest in what was happening to my original family. Karma, as in "what goes around comes around"? I don't know; causation is a lot more complex than that. I do know it's good riddance. I don't mean to sound cold, because I am not that way -- I love my other people dearly, and would do anything for them -- but in this case as in all cases, reality proceeds the way it proceeds. What it is.

Atheist Revolution : Getting Death Threats

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:48:35 +0000

Are you one of those evil, multi-headed beasts that seem to show up so often in mythology, I mean religion? Like the Hydra, or Cerberus, or that thing in Revelations? If you are that way, I'm scared of you. I don't hang with multiheads.

Atheist Revolution : Getting Death Threats

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:26:14 +0000

Absolutely true. Organized religion probably co-evolved along with other community structures -- mores, morals, law, power hierarchy, etc. People needed to specialize, and just as in everything else, they needed to have someone take care of the community's relationship with the powers of their little world, powers which were expressed as gods of the things that were important to the community. Hence, shamans, priests, etc. But goddamnit, this is so (by definition) primitive! And it survives to this day, even thrives! BTW, primitive is my new pet word: The religious OGs are trying to force on the thinkers, reformers and progressives of the populace primitive ideas, primitive justice, primitive social norms and hierarchies, primitive responses to inevitable cultural change, primitive (xenophobic, jingoistic) relationships with other cultural groups, and on and on and on.

Atheist Revolution : Getting Death Threats

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:02:30 +0000

I don't know for sure. The evidence was handed over to Canadian authorities, though from this thread I guess Markuse's still at it. I think this is the last post PZ had about the guy. It has his picture.

Atheist Revolution : Getting Death Threats

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:09:52 +0000

Markuse went over the top with PZ Myers, threatening his family and such, and the legal authorities got involved. He may be harmless, but his mouth sure is aggressive, and I do believe death threats are illegal in most locales. A little OT, but religious violence in the news today: Xians actually being persecuted in Baghdad. So now, for American Xtians the word persecute will be taken to span everything from disagreeing to blowing the shit out of them? I can't wait to hear more false equivalence. (Oh yes I can.)

Atheist Revolution : Responding to the Accommodationists: What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:47:15 +0000

And what about the so-called moderate Xian's motives in the hypothetical civilized discussion with atheists? What is it they want to accomplish? Are they leaning toward a reality-based view? Are they less full of shit than than the more rabid adherents to their faith? I know some really very nice Xians, some I count among my circle of friends. (Sounds suspect, I know -- Some of my best friends... -- but it's true!) It's magnanimous of them to extend the metaphysical largess of avoiding trying to convert me all the time. "But, here, just watch this DVD by a guy who's a minister, but very reasonable, and makes no supernatural claims in his discussion of why he believes, blah, blah, blah." You get the idea. This happened to me yesterday, and I watched two minutes, then FFed through some more, and then gave up. There was nary a "reasonable" moment in any of what I watched. The premise of the talk was that there is one decision that "changes everything" blah, blah, blah. Woooo-oooo! I ascairt!!! See, as far as I'm concerned, that decision changes exactly NOTHING, beyond the decision itself. I'm still sitting here typing, my car is still out of gas, I'm still (fucking) single, etc. That's three things, and to disprove "everything" I only needed one. I must be a dick.

Atheist Revolution : Responding to the Accommodationists: What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:53:05 +0000

Good one. Krishnamurti said, "Acceptance is the peace of death." Same idea.

Atheist Revolution : Responding to the Accommodationists: What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:31:19 +0000

Absolutely! I wrote over at the Benson post that bad ideas need to be confronted -- there is no other way to eradicate them. I also pointed out that someone is being murdered over religion even as I write, so the obvious time to work on this is right now. People are being destroyed by religion (as has always been) and the accommodationists are concerned with marketing? My sphere of influence is not very big, but people around me do generally consider what I say. The least I can do is tell the truth and brook no interference with the reality-based view. If that pisses off the pearl-clutchers, well, that's the way it goes sometimes.

Atheist Revolution : Responding to the Accommodationists: What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:19:33 +0000

Unity For Its Own Sake [TM], aka If you lack a cause to rally 'round, just rally 'round some more! I love it when smart people challenge conventional "wisdom" the way Benson does. The idea that unity would not be a positive good in and of itself will strike some people the way a vibration of the ground under my Midwestern feet would strike me -- I don't know what's wrong, but something definitely is. You get the same response if you say things like, "Loyalty is overrated," or "Let's think about changing the Constitution," or, "I hate puppies." I got the same reaction when I told a guy I didn't particularly care about having a relationship with my biological family. He went off on "god is all about restoration," blah blah blah, as if it were sacrilege to dis mom, along with apple pie and the flag. (I do love apple pie; flags, not so much, unless it's the jolly roger.) I guess I'm not much of a joiner, and I get nervous when there is enthusiasm without a point. I hated the "school spirit" assemblies. Mob psychology unnerves me, and I instinctively resist. This morning I was looking around on the net for resources about groups supporting parliamentary democracy in the U. S. Should I be doing this? Isn't it un-American? One practical benefit of allowing freedom of conscience and speech is that IDEAS GET PUT OUT THERE. I shout about this because some people seem to think that freedoms are just nice things to have and don't really serve any useful purpose. In fact it's probable that a lot of people are secretly nervous about freedom for all, because no one has ever discussed the practical benefits of our freedoms, and desiring freedoms falls into the same category of mindlessness (heedlessness) as other items. (That stuff is a problem, because it's mindlessness that I do not control. Religion, on the other hand....) Ideas getting put out there is the practical benefit of freedom of speech. More voices=more possibilities in the quest for good policy. Any good manager of process groups will tell you that diversity, although harder to manage, produces richer results, and provides inherent guards against group-think. Group-think among the sniveling, obsequious tone trolls is useless for anyone who wants real change. If I want equal rights in the public arena for non-theists, what possible use could there be for playing nice (especially when I'm not)? My aggravation with the status quo is part of my message, after all. How often has social change been accomplished by intellectual sweetness? However, I can be very accommodating. I will support everyone's right to think and say anything they want, and I will even accommodate their right to do that. I will not, however, acquiesce to demands to be soft when there is no reason for doing so, and plenty of reasons for not doing so.

Atheist Revolution : When Superstition is Involved, Be a Dick

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:58:26 +0000

AndyCWB referred to the Wikipedia article. I would also point out that, according to that article, the origin of the need for a woo-blessing is entirely of superstitious origin. True Christians(TM) should not be using "bless you" at all. My ancestry is German, so we always used Gesundheit. I could accept a secular usage of the concept of blessing -- something meaning, "May good things come your way inexplicably," which happens in real life anyway. Part of the issue is that nobody, as far as I know, not even religious people, believe the superstitions. We understand that sneezing cannot hurt you. (I think it's actually rather pleasant. Bodily functions can sometimes be that way.) So the blessing, and even gesundheit, are not needed. However, it's just like a fundie to insert their crazy into the phrase when they use it. I could use "blessed be," but that's already taken by some alternative woo-mongers, although I have to say I have never been messed with in any way by a Wiccan. They seem to be among the most harmless of the superstitious crowd, and they are devoted to nature -- something that resounds with me. My only complaint about Wicca is its silliness, but I am perfectly willing to dance around a may-pole naked anytime someone shows up with one. BTW, I'm in a coffee shop and two way-too-clean-cut xian guys are discussing their "ministries" -- you know, the practice of going somewhere and MESSING WITH PEOPLE. Jackasses. /edit: Uh-oh. Another one just arrived. Now they are talking about pro bono messing with people. WTF? I think I'll start using "blessed be" -- people will mistakenly think I am a Wiccan. What a dickish way to treat them!