Et Tu Tat?

I think the recent Sinfest comics miss a certain degree of irony contained in their message.

Bad Reasons to be an Atheist

I’ve covered bad reasons to believe in god a few times – though that’s a series that could go on forever. It seems only fair to cover a few reasons to be an atheist that don’t hold up. Most of the time if you’re going beyond the sheer lack of evidence, you’re at risk of ‘doing it wrong’.

1. Bad shit happens.

Against a specific god this may well be an excellent reason. If someone is claiming that their god is good and just and so forth then the sheer amount of nasty crap that goes on the world is an excellent way to refute that sort of claim. Otherwise, it’s being a little naive. After all, if there were a god there’s no reason to suppose it might not be an obnoxious, twisted, evil fuck.

2. A Priest was mean to me.

This just means people are shits and whatever god may or may not exist doesn’t necessarily have control over its followers, or does, and is an ‘orrible cunt.

3. It’s cool.

It is? I guess in certain quarters it is. Here in Europe it’s pretty unremarkable to be an atheist but peer pressure or advocacy is a shitty reason to be a non-believer, or a believer come to that. Just follow the evidence – or the lack thereof – and you’ll be fine.

The Amazing Flamewar

I wasn’t going to bother blogging on this as it just tends to fan the flames, but it’s hard to set out my position over twitter, especially once you have a couple of other names CC’ed in.

The Short-Short version of the story is that The Amazing Atheist flamed out on Reddit the other night, late at night, in the middle of heated discussion and under quite some attack and spouted off some ill-advised and bad tempered commentary about ‘trigger warnings’ that included ‘threats’ of rape.

So far, so bad, fair enough.

Who hasn’t ever lost their temper and flamed out on someone? I certainly have. I’ve said some ill advised things in the ‘heat of battle’ and the problem with the internet is that it combines the immediacy of the moment with the long memory of written text. So those things I, or TAA say live on in infamy. The same could also be said of things that people like Rebecca Watson have said but those, apparently, are forgivable or laudable, no matter how offensive or stereotypical they are.

This isn’t fair.

While it may be ironic for an atheist to use this saying: “To err is human, to forgive divine.” Divine in this case meaning ‘We can aspire to be better people’. TAA has apologised for what he has said (more than many others on the other side of the divide have ever done) and, frankly, this is a dude whose schtick is being ‘offensive’ and ‘controversial’. Something I also know well.

I suspect that these attacks have far more to do with TAA’s attitude and points expressed in videos like these…

…than this actual incident. The dogpiling of him over this has the familiar whiff of the opportunistic, torch-wielding mob. This isn’t justice, it’s a ‘GOTCHA!’ moment.

So, to set out what I think on this with CRYSTAL FUCKING CLARITY so people can stop badgering and judging me over it. Even accusing me of ‘supporting rape’ for speaking up (seriously, what the merry fuck?).

I do not think what he said was acceptable. I do not agree with him on everything he says. I find him to be an entertaining curmudgeon 80% of the time and an arsehole 20% of the time. I find that an acceptable ratio. Enjoying some of what he does and says doesn’t mean I automatically subscribe to the rest of what he does and says. I find the victimisation, dogpiling and demonisation of him EQUALLY unacceptable to his original comments and it smacks of a horseshit excuse to attack someone you didn’t like and whom you couldn’t otherwise get at. My concern over your abysmal behaviour towards another human being is not approval of what he said or did. It is disapproval of what YOU are saying and doing and I believe everyone deserves another shot if they apologise.

I would also refer you to these previous posts:

The Claim and Cause Entwined (This is what you’re doing).

Does Atheism have a Problem With Women (No, it does have a problem with unquestioned orthodoxy)

Here’s another video to close with…

Bulldozers

Perhaps more insidious than the nasty side of faith itself is this pernicious idea of ‘tolerance’. Sure, it sounds like a great idea and in many cases it is. There’s a flipside to this as well though. This degree of passivity, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade, to point out a problem, to criticise, means you just end up getting rolled right over by those who don’t extend the same respect.

Is there really nothing worth fighting for? Worth fighting against?

Where’s the mileage in sitting there and allowing nonsensical statements, beliefs, actions to go unchallenged simply because they’re cultural, religious or spiritual?

Why should we tolerate the anti-vax crowd and their dangerous nonsense, especially when it impacts on herd immunity?

Why should we tolerate alternative medicine, which hoovers money up from desperate people, conning them out of millions that could better support genuine medicine?

Why should we allow genital mutilation to go on?

Why should we allow the idea of faith as a virtue to continue to be promulgated or the masochistic guilt and self-loathing that Christianity foists on people?

There’s a term from Islam, commonly misused by racists, a sort of social status of one who doesn’t believe in Islam. A ‘Dhimmi’. This is ‘one whose responsibility has been taken’. It’s about two steps above slave and one above serf. It’s someone who is permitted or suffered to live amongst the believers, despite being a filthy heathen.

True believers are not going to extend the same respect to me, or to the wishy-washy ‘Let’s all get on’ types as we would extend to them. If we don’t stand up for what is true, correct and right. If we don’t fight back against these sorts of errant, bullshit ideas we’re going to get crushed.

Mr. Prosser: Do you know how much damage this bulldozer would sustain if I just let it roll over you?
Arthur: How much?
Mr. Prosser: None at all.

The Claim and the Cause Entwined

This appeared over on the JREF site today and immediately caused controversy despite being pretty clear cut. People have having a fit over it, so I want to preserve it here and offer my tuppence into the mix.

Written by Steve Cuno
Ever ordered Sea Monkeys from the back of a comic book? They are not monkeys at all, but brine shrimp, tiny creatures whose eggs survive long periods in a nearly-dry state.

I can only hope that you will join with me in my outrage. Brine shrimp eggs are ripped from their natural habitat and shipped to hatch far from family and friends. Many eggs do not survive the arduous trip. The lucky ones that survive do not live free, but are doomed to an unfulfilling aquarium life as the “property” of snot-nosed kids. It is not unlike the early slave trade in the U.S.

If you are tempted to click “Add Comment,” be forewarned. Should you challenge my likening the brine shrimp trade to the slave trade, or question whether brine shrimp are capable of feeling fulfilled or unfulfilled, or ask me to back up the claim that kids are snot-nosed … I have an ace up my sleeve. I shall call you a racist. Nay, even better, I shall accuse you of being pro-slavery.

It’s a nifty, sleight-of-mind trick that lets me get away with begging the question, setting up a straw man and launching an ad hominem attack, all while looking like I’m defending decency. Heck, I may even fool myself.

If you’d like to try my trick, here are the steps: (1) Make a claim and apply it to a worthy cause. (2) Should people challenge assumptions underlying the claim, accuse them of opposing the cause. (3). Call them names and encourage others to jump on your bandwagon Thus it will make short work of any opponents. Not only that. You will emerge feeling validated, even justified, eager and ready to launch the process again. And again.

Of course, this doesn’t happen in the real world. Skeptics aren’t so human as to indulge such tactics, wittingly or unwittingly, much less fall for them. Thank goodness for that.

Steve Cuno is a three-time TAM speaker and regular Randi.org contributor. He is also bald. Disagree with him and he may call you a scalpist. If you have nothing better to do with your time than read Steve’s blogs, click here.

I think Steve makes a hugely important point and a similar one to the one I’ve made before. If you’re going to be a sceptic you should be sceptical to everything, have the same standards for everything. A theist might not have the same standards for believing in god as they would for Nessie and we should be better than having that sort of contradiction.

Just because your cause is just or you care about it a great deal doesn’t release you from the need for evidence. Nor does it mean that anyone who takes issue with one of your claims is a bigot, a racist, a sexist or whatever the hell else the genuine opponents of your point of view are.

This is not only stupid, insulting and irrational but it also turns people against you and makes your cause seem less legitimate because the only way you have of backing it up is to hurl invective rather than back up your point.

Predictably, people with an apparently guilty conscience started weighing in assuming it was talking about them and, disappointing, engaging in the very tactic being talked about.

Take this prime example:

Where would the internet and skeptic community be without straight white men and their passive-aggressive grumbling about being forced to question their assumption that they’re too intelligent to be bigots?

Hopefully my readership doesn’t need the terrible irony and the lack of self awareness in that statement pointed out to them.

Learn the lesson. We explain things to Creationists over and over and over again as needed. You might be tired of explaining your other beliefs over and again but if they have anything behind them you should show the same patience and willingness to do it for these beliefs and be willing to understand the being sceptical of your claim doesn’t make someone an ‘ist.

FFS.

A moment of your time…

Please take a moment to read what I have said about SOPA, PIPA and internet piracy on my company site.

Why the Hate for Evolutionary Psychology?

Sticking with the feminism theme, at least for this post. I find myself wondering quite what the objection to evolutionary psychology is. After all, evolutionary psychology, just like any other evolutionary theory, doesn’t try to say what’s right or wrong, it tries to describe what is.

It cannot help but feel to me that the objections to it come from a similar root to religious objections to biological evolution. Just as a creationist doesn’t like the idea of ‘coming from a monkey’ or just being another animal so, it feels, that people object to the idea that their behaviours, their psychology, may be influenced (rather than determined) by their evolutionary history.

This becomes particularly contentious when one gets to the matter of differences between the genders. Hopefully, by this point, nobody would disagree that there are – indeed – biological differences between the sexes. Not just the obvious primary and secondary sexual characteristics but in genetics, hormones, brain structure and a host of other things. Hell, human females are (if I remember correctly) the only animal to have evolved an organ purely for pleasure.

Moving away from the sensitive area of talking about humans and all their neuroses for a moment let’s strip it back.

1. We know evolution takes place.
2. We know sexual dimorphism exists. Often to remarkable extremes.*
3. We know behaviour can be affected by selection.
4. We know behaviour, particularly sexual, even very complex can be split between genders.
5. What is psychology other than complex behaviour interactions?

The question then becomes what’s so bloody special about human beings? Why would someone think we were different? Strikes me as particularly arrogant, as arrogant as claiming we have ‘souls’ and animals don’t.

I think the problem comes about in that some people see, in evolutionary psychology, justification or support for rather hidebound and traditional views of gender roles. That there are (or probably are) psychological difference between the sexes does not mean those differences conform to stereotype or myth.

At the risk of invoking a reductio ad Hitlerum I would point out that eugenics, while crude, could eliminate many genetic diseases. That doesn’t mean that the crazed racial hatred of the Nazis or their elimination tactics are valid or scientific. Nor does it mean that such methods have not been superseded, nor that they were right or moral.

*And other than, perhaps, gorillas or baboons, we’re particularly sexually dimorphic amongst our close relatives.

Smithers, release the trolls

With reference to the Reddit/Atheism femsplosion. (Though truth be told, I’m beginning to suspect Rebedda Watson is a professional troll).

Sorry ladies but your internet problems aren’t special.

The internet is often a foul, horrible, disgusting dose of pure, unalloyed, Freudian id (which is part of what makes it so fascinating). It’s a constant confirmation of Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad theory (Anonymity + Audience = Shitcock) but this obnoxious, nasty, horrific behaviour is both a great strength of the internet and is applied to everyone.

Whatever it is you regard as BAAAWWWW worthy, the trolls will find and will go after you with. If you’re a girl who reacts like to inappropriate comments in the way an Ayatollah might react to the Playboy Mansion they’re going to find that button and push it hard.

Yes that’s terrible, yes that’s awful, no, it’s not unique.

If you’re gay (or even a ‘breeder’ in some quarters) it’ll be that. If you have long hair or a buzzcut. If you’re in the military, or not. If you’re liberal, or conservative. Whatever you are, whatever you do, someone will find a way to get on at you for that. If you’re male or white you’ll get shit on just the same as if you’re black or yellow or brown or whatever else.

Everybody is fair game to internet trolls, no exceptions. It’s like Rule 34 for abuse. Most of them are just looking to shock, to get a rise and by far the best thing you can generally do is to ignore the fuckers.

An anecdote isn’t worth anything statistically, but for what it’s worth I have had plenty of death threats, attempted boycotts, people trying to interfere with my workplace or get me fired, stalking behaviour, DOS, hacking, inappropriate comments, barrages of look-alike porn, horrific spamming containing pictures of animal abuse and many others sorts of horrible online abuse.

This… bullshit that goes on is not special or unique to women, racial minorities, sexual proclivities or anything else.

It happens to everyone.

To be absolutely clear to people who love to push my particular button of taking anything I say the wrong way (or not reading it at all), I’m not saying this is a good thing or even an acceptable thing. I’m just saying its not a feminist/racist/etc issue, rather it’s an INTERNET issue.

I don’t know what the solution is but dividing the community into subsets and feeding the trolls with delicious, delicious fem-rage certainly isn’t it.

You can always block/ban/report but the problem with that is that people often silence meaningful dissent and valid alternate points of view by these methods, creating ‘echo chambers’ that only reinforce their own beliefs and that leads to extremism.*

I don’t know if there even is a solution that can, at the same time, preserve the eminently valuable nature of the internet as an anonymised and distanced communication medium. One need only examine the problems G+ has had with the Nymwars to see just how much people value their online identities and anonymity.

—

* http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/content-pages/deliberative-trouble?-why-groups-go-to-extremes/
* http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122307/
* http://bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.php

Things Christians Should Consider When Trying to Make Debate Rules

I was recently referenced to THIS. Some of which makes some sense, much of which doesn’t. Let’s take a look at these points one by one and show where the issues lie:

1. Understand What you Attack

Generally speaking we do. Indeed many atheists become atheists precisely because they come to understand Christianity (or other religions) and hence their shortcomings. In general I find atheists have a much better and complete understanding of religion than those who support it. This sounds surprising, but if you think about it for a little bit, it really isn’t.

2. Learn Biblical Theology

Given that there’s so many different and contradicting theologies, this is an impossible ask.

3. Learn From Correction

Again, given that each sect, even each believer, seems to not agree on what they believe or how to interpret, this is impossible. It’s also somewhat hypocritical to ask.

4. Don’t be Stupid

Oh, the irony.

5. Don’t Use Incendiary Statements

What constitutes an incendiary statement is very different from person to person. Often simple facts are taken as incendiary by people as an excuse to flee an argument.

6. Don’t Use Emotionally Loaded Terminology

The examples given here include ‘Christian mythology’, which is obviously only a loaded term if you’re irrationally biased and wedded to the mythology in the first place. Again, what it taken as ‘loaded’ will vary from person to person.

7. Be Respectful of What We Believe

I thought lying was a sin in your theology? We don’t respect what you believe. Respect has to be earned. We respect YOU enough to argue it.

8. Use Logic and Evidence

Oh, the irony.

9. Read Biblical Passages in Context

Which is, of course, code for “Interpret them the same way I do”. This has the same problems as mentioned before, nobody does that the same way.

10. Don’t Cut and Paste from Anti-Christian Websites

This gets about as much ground as ‘Don’t post Bible passages’ would. It’s often a lot easier and quicker to give references in an argument. It’s useful.

The Jesus Myth

It’s Xmas and, quite beside all the other issues related to the holiday there’s a much more fundamental one that most take for granted.

Did Jesus even exist?

Even atheists take it for granted that Jesus was an historical figure, they just think he wasn’t magic. This is a bit of a mistake though as, as it turns out, there is no evidence – whatsoever – that he was ever a real person.

That sounds like a grandiose claim, even though it isn’t, simply because we take it so for granted. We’re not the only ones either. As is often claimed by apologists ‘Most scholars agree Jesus was a real person’. Indeed, but without the evidence and reasoning behind that, this is just an argument from authority or popularity. So, what you need is evidence.

So. That given. What would be evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus? Any such evidence would need to be:

1. Contemporaneous: From the period alleged to be the lifetime of Jesus (7BCE to 36CE).
2. Non-Christian: Christian claims are the ones you’re trying to confirm.
3. Multiple: Multiple sources inter-correlate and back each other up.

So, let’s look at the various items that are usually claimed as evidence for Jesus and show why they’re not:

The Bible

You can’t use a claim to prove itself. The Bible is the source of the claims about god, Jesus etc and so is biased. You can’t believe it any more than you could L Ron Hubbard’s claims. You need unbiased sources or, even better, sources biased against Christianity. That way anything they do admit is likely to be at least a little true.

Even if this wasn’t a problem, the earliest gospel – Mark – dates from 70CE at the absolute very earliest and is not even a contemporaneous source. None of the gospels were written by the supposed disciples, many of whom probably didn’t exist. Modern Christianity is the result of the actions of Paul (Saul of Tarsus), someone who never met Jesus and the first unquestionably historical character associated with it.

Josephus

Josephus wasn’t even born until 37CE, at least one year after the supposed lifetime of Jesus and so is non-contemporaneous. Even if that wasn’t an issue there are further issues. The mentions of Jesus aren’t consistent across the lineages of copies of Josephus’ works. Josephus’ works have been heavily interpolated (interfered with) by Eusebius and so, even if we didn’t have all these other issues, it couldn’t be trusted as a source.

Lucian

Non-contemporaneous (Born 125CE) Lucian is also eliminated as any form of confirmation for the existence of Jesus. Even without that, Lucian was a satirist and taking the piss out of what Christians believe, not confirming it as true. South Park’s episode on Scientology makes fun of it, but doesn’t mean it’s true. Same thing.

Mara Bar-Serapion

Non-contemporaneous, again, 73CE at the very earliest. There’s also the problem that Mara writes about other figures, gods, disasters in the same breath. Things that didn’t happen, mythologies that Christians would reject. It’s not even certain (Jesus isn’t mentioned by name) that he was talking about Jesus.

Pliny the Younger

Non-contemporaneous, again, 62CE. Also talks about what Christians believe, not what’s true. Now, if Pliny the ELDER mentioned Jesus, people might be on to something as he was around in the right period and place. Jesus is conspicuously absent from the writings of Pliny the Elder however.

Suetonius

Non-contemporaneous, yet again (seriously, try harder and learn some basic historical methodology apologists). Also mentions the title ‘Christ’ (Chrestos) which was not exclusively Christian at the time. Doesn’t directly mention Jesus at all.

Tacitus

Non-contemporaneous, yet again (56CE). Tacitus’ Jesus references are, again, only found in one lineage of copies which are almost certainly interpolated. Assertions made within those passages are, furthermore, contradicted by other lineages of documentation with better confirmation. Again, also, it only talks about what Christians believed, not what was true.

The Talmud

Specifically the Babylonian Talmud. Non-contemporaneous – yet again – by as much as three centuries. It does mention a Yeshua. It mentions about a dozen Yeshuas one of which Christians like to interpret to mean Jesus, even though the story attached is nothing like the Jesus story.

Thallus

Again, non-contemporaneous (writing long after the alleged lifetime of Jesus) and what’s more doesn’t actually mention Jesus at all, so why he’s brought up I’m not quite sure. Rather Thallus is usually brought up to try and substantiate some of the supernatural claims. Thallus does talk about an eclipse (a natural event) but gets the date of it wrong compared to other historians of the time. We know, through astronomy, when these take place and Thallus doesn’t match up.

That about covers it.

As we can see, there’s nothing that constitutes evidence for the existence of Jesus as a real person, supernatural or otherwise. Given that, we are forced to hold the negative position under the Burden of Proof.

Enjoy the holiday, but remember, it’s just a myth.

If you want a longer-winded version with more references, rather than this overview, this is a good one