Comments on: What does an atheist firing squad look like?

By: Steph

Steph — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:54:23 +0000

Anybody who’s been around ScienceBlogs for a while and followed the Framing Wars and the Accommodationism Wars—as Greg has to some extent—will understand

This is VERY funny. Greg STARTED the framing wars IIRC with a post on how Mooney and Nisbet had framing wrong. This then led to a series of blog fights and the famous Slapdown in Minnesota.

I am not sure it is a good idea to dredge up these old posts, tho.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:44:15 +0000

Could this thread go to 500 comments?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:37:17 +0000

Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity. Unfortunately, for many, it adds a source of unfounded and inappropriate hubris. It is often impossible to tell a privileged middle class but a culturally uneducated racist Christian from a self assured arrogant atheist when either is speaking of ignorant primitive superstitious brown people living like dumb animals in Bungbungaland. Neither has a clue what they are talking about. When we hear some news story from another culture where some silly humans are doing some dumb-ass thing, both individuals will expand the presumption of utter stupidity to all aspects of the life and lifeways of the subject of the news story, yet that is rarely the case. Those primitive Bungabungalanders are often quite a bit smarter in their day to day lives than the average Westerner, and are often just as much interested in cutting out the bullshit and crap as anyone else. The arrogant atheist or the christian with the crappy attitude will forgive themselves for having an unfounded idiotic belief but will use the same sort of thing to accuse, try, and convict entire cultures of having everything wrong. One thing that is missing that allows this to happen is recognition of the fact that the mundane of one culture is the stand-out bizarre for another. This is one of the main contributions of field Anthropology, though it’s significance was tossed out 30 years ago when sociocultural anthropologists went soft on ethnography.

By: stoppedclock

stoppedclock — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:21:59 +0000

Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity the religious are hampered with.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:35:16 +0000

Steph, I have to disagree with you–somewhat. I’d say that the problematic thing that religion provides is certainty. Plenty of smart people believe in religion and end up doing all sorts of fascinating mental gymnastics to support their certain beliefs.

Unfortunately, you can see a similar certainty at work in this thread with the idea that there’s only one way for a blog community to work or only one thing that any statement can mean. When you get people suggesting others are insane or dishonest over a disagreement about social interactions, you have to know there’s something a bit wonky at the root.

By: Steph

Steph — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:11:02 +0000

Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity the religious are hampered with.

By: Angela

Angela — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:02:42 +0000

I find atheists the same as everyone else. To think because you are atheist you are more logical, less judgmental, or less likely to extremist view would be to put yourself above others and think you are better. To say that all but atheist views are wrong is no different than any one else judges all but his beliefs as inferior and insubstantial. From what I’ve seen acceptance of others beliefs is not easily done by anyone, including atheists.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:01:57 +0000

That’s the problem with these retrospective posts. On the other hand, as Stephanie points out, things change and perhaps that dynamic is the important reality.

Suffice it to say that the last comment on a long sequence in which a half dozen neurotic commenters were screaming about how wrong I was was, indeed, the last word, almost as though I had been right all along … I guess we’ll all just have to assume that I was! Bwa ha ha ha hahahaah ha. .. ha.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:31:28 +0000

Blink? Have you forgotten the to do over changing the Dawkins forum? Have you forgotten declaring loudly how Dawkins was spoiled for them forever? Have you forgotten the silly sight of someone repeatedly telling PZ that “It’s okay. I know you have political reasons why you feel compelled to support Dawkins in his decision because you couldn’t really support him on the merits”?

Yes, things change and disappear on the internet, but I’d think that whole fiasco would have made an impression.

By: Rorschach

Rorschach — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:42:17 +0000

QED, bitches.

“The requested topic does not exist.”

*blink*