I’m always happy to see atheists coming out in minority communities. My advice: be honest. If others can’t deal with it, try to talk about it openly. If that still doesn’t work, resort to humor. Eventually, they’ll come round. And if not, it’s not your problem anymore; it’s theirs.
(via Black Atheists of America.)
The other day I was catching up on the latest brouhaha in the atheist blogosphere (Jeremy Stangroom vs. Badnewatheists). I hadn’t really been keeping up, you see, as we just moved and have a seven month old daughter. Not ideal conditions for up-to-date blogging. But the internet works fine here, so I dipped my big toe in and…ouch! The water was scalding.
Stangroom is upset that gnu atheists are occasionally rude. Make that nasty. Make that abhorrent. Find the worst adjective you can and apply it to Jerry Coyne, the most evil motherfucker on the web. He just ran over your blind grandma with his Triumph, then stopped to watch her writhe and bleed to death on the pavement. Did I mention he was smoking a Cuban cigar at the time? And listening to Black Sabbath on his iPod? That’s pure gnu atheist style devilry at work.
I don’t really want to get in the middle of this debate. Yes, I do. Sort of. The issue is, do people have the right to be occasionally rude? I think so. You may disagree, of course. But you’d better disagree with a gentleman’s manners.
The comments are closed to most of Stangroom’s recent posts. And don’t bother twittering at him, because he has little patience for that kind of thing. His essential gripe is that the gnus have written things on their blogs that make people upset, and apparently some of those people write him emails kvetching about the horrible manners of a handful of science bloggers. So maybe he’s getting sick of playing school counselor. I don’t know. But it seems odd to me that the words of Jerry Coyne or P.Z. Myers carry such tremendous weight in the psyches of their debate partners (or that anyone debating them is unprepared for their style). If they are too rough and tumble, why are these tender souls even in the ring?
Stangroom surprised me, though, in a brief email exchange. After his pounding the nail on the head about how terribly nasty the gnus are, I expected him to be the very picture of politeness. Especially with his critics. But right out of the gate (on Twitter, no less) he told me I was making a fool of myself, intimated that I was out of my league, and that my opinion “wasn’t worth 2 cents.” One step short of telling me I had a stupid face, really.
I haven’t asked him for permission to quote his emails; and I don’t expect he’d give it to me, either. I don’t even want to play his game and point the finger at his sense of exquisite incivility. I did point out to him this one little thing, though. I wrote:
“I might just break out in tears because you told me I was making a fool of myself on Twitter. Has that thought occurred to you? Do you give a damn?”
I hope it gives him pause for thought, at least. He doesn’t know me. For all he knows I might be a basket case. I might even write to Ophelia Benson in tears that I’d been reduced to emotional oatmeal and my life had been rendered meaningless. But maybe he was having an off day. Or maybe he found my inquisitiveness nauseating. I don’t know and I really don’t care. He was rude to me and I don’t hold it against him.
And he should stop holding it against the gnu atheists. As far as I can tell his is nothing more than a sanctimonious pose. Given the chance to be an example of decorum, he blew it in one tweet.
I don’t have a great deal of time this morning – or really any morning – to blog (thus, Twitter). So, to celebrate Charles Darwin’s 202nd birthday and his enduring contribution to modern creationism (anyway something about apes – I can’t be bothered with the details), here is an intelligently designed cartoon depicting the errors of modern evolutionary thought for which Darwin is so deliciously to blame. Via Atheist Cartoons. (I’m sure this will pop up on a thousand other blogs today. Enjoy.)
There is a blog I’ve been reading for a few days now by a woman named Monica (hey, my sister’s name is Monica!), who calls herself Monicks. She has made a super-long list of atheists on Twitter to which my name (@godlessinitaly, duh) should be added sometime soon, I hope. So if you’ve never checked out Monicks Unleashed I suggest you do so. She’s way cool.
When I saw Whatever Works last year I loved it. The person I saw it with told me I reminded her a lot of Boris Yelnikoff, the lead character played by Larry David. I took it as a compliment. Plenty of people have told me I remind them of Woody Allen, which I also take as a compliment (though I know it isn’t always meant as one.)
My impression was that the movie kind of got slammed as one of Allen’s least-best, which is hardly criticism. I just watched it again. It’s actually a moving atheist comedy about Bible-Belt American Christians losing their old-time religion, following their passions and embracing a secular lifestyle in New York City.
There’s a great scene where Ed Begley, Jr., who plays the father, falls to his knees and begs Jesus for forgiveness for his sins. His daughter Melody, by now married to Yelnikoff – a misanthropic Jewish atheist – smiles sweetly and says, “Do you want to tell him or should I?”
“Tell me what?” her father responds.
“There’s nobody out there. Honest. You’re prayin’ to no one!”
Here’s the New Year’s scene at the end, which I’d wanted to post a few days ago, but what the hell. It’s a great movie, even if it’s not Annie Hall.
My wife really dislikes Facebook; even so, she feels compelled to share at least some information about herself. Last night she was filling in a few new interests on her profile when she came to “religion.” “What should I write?” she asked. “‘I love Jesus? Liberal? Agnostic?'” “Why don’t you just tell the truth?” I said. “Write ‘atheist.'”
“That sounds too harsh,” she replied. “I’ll just put down ‘Buddhist’ instead.”
It’s a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, after all.
I know I shouldn’t be doing this, but this comment is so stoopid it’s irresistible. Blame P.Z. Myers.
“First off, there is no such thing as atheist (but is there such thing as “Sam?”), it is indeed plain simply (I think you mean “plain and simple”) arrogance and utter rudeness to the scientific community let alone the religious one (I never made any promises), their claim in itself is a positive one (which claim?), u (you) can( )not provide proof of his existence (whose existence?), whihc (ahhhh!) make u logically at best agnostic who lack(s) humility (who me?) to accepting lack of knowledge (of what again?).
in so far as the quran goes, seems like u were expecting mathematical notions, or some scientific formula “although there scientific stuff in there” (there be science!). are u mad (those be my initials, genius)?
t(T)he point is about, the highly likelihood of his being, rather than nothing coming out of nothing, and forget about the quantum fluctuation and string ripples (what’re you smokin’, dude?), the numbers dont add up (what numbers???). and there is already been proved that universe paradox, is a logical fallacy in itself. (pot, kettle)
In case anyone is wondering, this was posted as a comment to Another atheist reads the Qur’an. I don’t mean to make fun of “Sam”, but he could’ve put a bit more thought and effort into making himself comprehensible to someone so hard-hearted he offends both the scientific and religious communities in the same breath (in your dreams, pal!)
I should’ve taken that job as a proofreader.
Now that Hanukkah is over we can start in on Christmas.
Over at WashPo Susan Jacoby couldn’t resist having another laugh at the expense of the Catholic Church. But this is like sniggering at the shmendrick who drops his ice cream on the sidewalk: it’s too easy. Here’s Jacoby:
Let’s see. One in four American-born Catholics have left the church during the past 20 years. Parish schools are being closed throughout the country because many dioceses are strapped for cash after settlements with victims of priestly pedophilia. Seminaries are empty and nuns (those who are left) are in open rebellion against a male hierarchy that will not even consider ordaining women as priests. I guess it’s logical that the church needs more exorcists.
Talk about desperate. If I were the pope I’d be trying to make my church a bit more modern, a bit more humanistic and a bit more, well…serious. Exorcism is sheer buffoonery, like clown shoes. Did you ever see the pope walk out in public wearing something so silly as big, floppy clown shoes? Well, I guess you have.
Jacoby nails moderate religious belief as well:
The problem with “moderate” religion–as distinct from fundamentalists creeds that insist on the literal truth of ancient collections of fantasies–is that there is really no difference between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” supernatural beliefs. When you think about it, it is really no more absurd to believe that Satan can make us froth at the mouth than it is to believe that ashes will one day be reassembled and restored to life. Any belief for which there is no evidence apart from one’s own longings and fears is unreasonable. That is why I am an atheist.
She’s right, too. Why is belief in the recomposition of a decomposed body any less outlandish than belief in devils, demons and dybbuks? It’s all nonsense, and that’s the point. All religions are full of such beliefs, right down to the central one about God. If you think I’m being unfair (and I know a lot of people who hold on to God as a pre-teen boy holds on to his teddy bears) I’d like to know what you think the difference is.
And that’s one reason I, too, am an atheist.
Marc Di Martino 