Pharyngula

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 2, 2010 8:06 AM

axe-murderers, father-rapers, and church-burners

that's this bench over here, Arlo

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 2, 2010 8:20 AM

Like all paranoids, the religious are afraid we will talk about them. Psst, did you hear the one about the religious guy who walked into a bar...

Posted by: dsmwiener | February 2, 2010 8:31 AM

What these people are really doing is showing their hand. They have put everything into the religion basket and I think they are sincere in their inability to understand how others function without it. It is total cult immersion.

Posted by: Legion | February 2, 2010 8:43 AM

Comment from Zwart to Dave Nichols in the comment section of the article. Emphasis ours:

But when you say you lack freedom from religion in Australia, that sounds a strong claim. Who forces religion of any sort on you. Perhaps you could amplify what you mean? And of course atheistic parents bring up their children as atheists. Few send them to church so they can make a "choice". This indoctrination by religion versus the purity of atheism is another dearly beloved fantasy of many fundamentalist atheists.

This implied claim that religious belief isn't forced on anyone, provides clear evidence that Mr. Zwartz is another disingenuous liar for Hay-sus. Assuming he's some species of xtian, we find it hard to believe that he is unaware of the central tenet of his faith, which is to go forth and aggressively proselytize to the heathens.

We find it unfathomable that he is unaware of efforts at home and abroad to dilute science with superstitious fucknuttery.

We are appalled at his implied claim that religious belief and ritual do not permeate society from cradle to grave, effectively forcing said belief and rituals on all members of society.

We find ourselves utterly stunned that he pretends to be unaware of the fact that to be an atheist today, is akin to being gay in the 1970's (albeit, without all the killing... so far, thank FSM)

Finally, his protestation reminds us of certain other types who claim that racism and sexism don't exist either.

What a smirking ball of animated dirt.

Posted by: mck9 | February 2, 2010 8:45 AM

In fairness to Barney Zwartz, the author of the article cited, he does say in a footnote at the bottom:

I know atheists are never short of things to talk about. (That’s a joke too.)

It's not much of a joke that needs a footnote to identify it as one. Still, he does seem to know better than what he says.

Posted by: jashbowie | February 2, 2010 8:49 AM

This reminds me of the one irritating scene in the otherwise enjoyable movie, The Soloist. The reporter lead character (Downey) is searching for a story and finds a member of an atheist group that is sponsoring the cleanup of a section of highway. The reporter snidely asks if they meet and if they only talk about how they don't believe in god...and the atheist just stands there like a Three Stooges idiot. What's really annoying about that scene is the answer is RIGHT THERE...the atheists have agreed to help make Los Angeles a better place by volunteering to clean up garbage. Clearly they work towards bettering society through action, and this was an opportunity (I know it was just a movie) for the atheist to talk about ethics sans-religion.

But I think the writer of this scene is like so many others who simply can't even imagine that atheists can be compassionate, fulfilled, joyous people who are motivated to work in harmony with others to improve this world for everyone. Sigh.

Posted by: Strangest brew | February 2, 2010 8:53 AM

I think it is quite obvious that the religions, especially the xian one, hate it when atheism attracts enough folks to hold a convention.

You see if atheism is big enough to hold a convention they are big enough to confront religion and that is scary, they might win an argument.

The other quite obvious point is, religion lovers have no way to get a handle on atheism, they don't understand it, the don't like it, they are indeed a threatened by it.

A movement which apparently is not another religion but then again must be cos they 'believe' the same thing as each other apparently.
So confusing.

And where do they get their morals from cos we use a bible they use nothing, they in fact must make it up, seems odd that is seems not unlike our own moral direction in some ways just less in our other ways of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred, totally unchristian just weird, they must be a religion otherwise it is impossible...isn't it?

Posted by: Moggie | February 2, 2010 9:05 AM

Shorter Barney Zwartz (judging by the article and the comments):

David Nicholls is a commie! I didn't say that! Fundamentalist atheists indoctrinate children! Reason is overrated! Lots of scientists are Christian! Ok, some scientists are Christian, but they're the best ones! Deep rifts! Religion doesn't have undue privilege and influence on government, despite evidence to the contrary! You're just paranoid, like Christians!

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | February 2, 2010 9:16 AM

Beautifully said, PZ.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 2, 2010 9:28 AM

Atheists are bigfoot?

Posted by: Moggie | February 2, 2010 9:37 AM

#18:

Many Christians are absolutely staggered when they meet a confessed atheist at how normal they are.

True. But what makes the article in question noteworthy is that it's written not by some bozo in bible belt America, where atheists keep a low profile, but by the religion editor of an Australian newspaper. Unless he's unusually sheltered, he meets confessed atheists every day. Surely an Australian who clutched their pearls at every atheist encounter would wear them out pretty quickly.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 2, 2010 9:39 AM

My faithful friends were wondering,
And I was wondering, too,
When atheists get together—
Just what all do they do?
They have no common purpose,
And so I find it odd,
To think they join together
And talk about “no god”.

My faithful friends were arguing,
I made my case as well,
Which people went to Heaven
And which ones went to Hell.
Which version of our Holy Book
Is better than the rest,
And, ultimately, which of our
Religions was the best.

My faithful friends were fighting
And I, too, joined the fight
God’s Holy Word demanded it
And so we felt it right.
The heretics and infidels
All needed to be taught;
God will not stand for people
Not believing what they ought!

My faithful friends were killing
As we have throughout the years
An internecine battle with
Our brothers and our peers
With countless souls in suffering
And countless hearts in grief
To show that there is nothing
More important than belief

My faithful friends were dying
By the dozens, by the scores
In random city bombings
And in major bloody wars
We lose our lives as instruments
Of God's own rightful wrath;
And when we've gone, our children too
Will follow in our path.

My faithful friends were wondering,
And I was wondering, too,
When atheists get together—
Just what all do they do?
They have no common purpose,
And so I find it odd,
To think they join together
And talk about “no god”.

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/02/nothing-to-talk-about.html

Posted by: Rorschach | February 2, 2010 9:44 AM

The gentleman from the linked "Age" article was pointed to this blog post by one of his readers and responded thusly :

What impresses me there is the fair-minded atheists who actually read the whole article and came to my defence. A lesson to us all. P.Z. Myers clearly does not have that intellectual credibility.

My attempts at commenting there have not yet yielded any success.

Posted by: Iris | February 2, 2010 10:01 AM

@cuttlefish

Bravo. Fucking brilliant.

Posted by: gistgrant | February 2, 2010 10:14 AM

@Iris

Ditto !

Had a lovely poetry moment with the wife.

Posted by: Richard Eis | February 2, 2010 10:28 AM

I will look forward to his blog posting on the actual conference. He is clearly just baiting us at the moment.

So, are the schisms pre-organised, or do we bring our own?

Posted by: Kobra | February 2, 2010 11:29 AM

I've been to anime and other nerd conventions, and I'm going to attend a 5-day (!!!) anime/furry/steampunk convention in May. If a room full of otaku and furries can find something to do for 5 days, I'm sure a crowd of atheists will be able to entertain each other for 3.

Posted by: Moggie | February 2, 2010 11:43 AM

#33:

I've been to anime and other nerd conventions, and I'm going to attend a 5-day (!!!) anime/furry/steampunk convention in May. If a room full of otaku and furries can find something to do for 5 days, I'm sure a crowd of atheists will be able to entertain each other for 3.

Atheist cosplay, of course! Prizes for the most convincing Dawkins costume.

#34:

Kinda says it all, no? Gotta be wary of that thing called "reason." And the implications? What, like, say, questioning whether there's any evidence for the purported supernatural agent(s) religions invoke as 'explanations'? Yup. Gotta be careful about those implications all right.

Yes, "reason" is kind of like bleach. It's useful to have around, but you need to be careful how you use it, and keep it away from children. It cleans things up real good, but incautious use can ruin treasured things.

Posted by: Sastra | February 2, 2010 11:46 AM

I don't think Christians aren't totally to blame then if they find it confusing.

Er, that was confusing, and I am to blame.

"I don't think Christians are totally to blame then, if they find it confusing."

Posted by: boygenius | February 2, 2010 12:19 PM

Cuttlefish, your poems generally make me smile, occasionally even outright laugh. This one brought a somber tear to my eye.

Thank you.

+1

Posted by: lose_the_woo | February 2, 2010 12:26 PM

@davej #40

I'm afraid that many self-declared young atheists have little interest in reason or science. All they want out of it is independence.

Interesting. What in your experience causes you to think that?

Posted by: JJ | February 2, 2010 12:31 PM

Legion@7
From what you quoted

And of course atheistic parents bring up their children as atheists. Few send them to church so they can make a "choice". This indoctrination by religion versus the purity of atheism is another dearly beloved fantasy of many fundamentalist atheists.

Well I was brought up without religion (the whole religion thing was just ignored, really). Not specifically atheist or agnostic or whatever. But, for a short period of time, my older sister started to go to church (though I think it was just to hang out with a boy). Then, she made her own decision that it was dumb (CHOICE!).

I never went to church but once, with a girlfriend.

To this day I have always seen religion as silly, and always forget that people actually beleive this stuff. I think I've accidentally offended friends in the past not realizing that they were actually religious.

Posted by: Caine | February 2, 2010 12:34 PM

So what on earth (given that heaven is ruled out) will they talk about?

It's interesting, the blindspot atheism invokes in the religious. When religious people get together, they aren't talking gods 24/7. I'd say the complete failure of imagination is partly due to them having no desire whatsoever to associate with other believers.

Posted by: Sanction | February 2, 2010 12:41 PM

For those who scrolled past Cuttlefish@23 without reading the entry:

Go back and take a look. It's a haunting poem, an instant classic.

Posted by: ianmhor | February 2, 2010 12:43 PM

davej #40:

I would also like to see justification of that statement.

I and my two sisters were allowed to choose - religion was not forced on us but we were made to at least experience a little of it. In the end 3 atheists.

Interestingly, my wife had a similar situation with her two sisters though in their case no exposure at all - another 3 atheists.

Nowhere was the idea ever part of the struggle for independence that took all the normal routes in the two of the six that could be bothered.

Posted by: OurDeadSelves | February 2, 2010 12:50 PM

For some, yes. But not all of us are that way.

Oh, for sure. I didn't mean to paint all young atheists that way. Hell, I never had a break from religion-- my parents raised me in a secular household and I've considered myself an atheist ever since I had a word for it.

My reaction was to DaveJ's Well, if only this was entirely true. I'm afraid that many self-declared young atheists have little interest in reason or science. All they want out of it is independence. (@40) and I was agreeing with him 'cos waaaaaay back in my youth I knew some kids in high school who were simply doing it to be non-conformist.

Posted by: Legion | February 2, 2010 1:09 PM

JJ:

I think I've accidentally offended friends in the past not realizing that they were actually religious.

We were once talking to a co-worker and casually asked if she could recommend a good contract lawyer. The conversation went something like this:

Co-worker: "Yes I know someone. He's great and he's a believer."

Legion: "In what?"

Co-worker: ???

Legion: Your guy, the lawyer. What's he believe in?"

Co-worker: [petulantly] "In god of course."

[Awkward silence]

Legion: "Oh. I didn't realize... I thought maybe he was into some cult or something."

Co-worker:

Legion: "Uh, I think I'm late for an appointment."

Posted by: Brian English | February 2, 2010 1:16 PM

Barney Zwartz is a certified liar for Jesus. I've seen him lie about Richard Dawkins (and other atheists), and when pulled up on his 'error' he acknowledges or ignores it, but most certainly has seen the objection/evidence, then later repeates the lie(s) as if they were facts. Truth is only important to him regarding atheism when it occassionally is useful in deriding atheism and atheists.

One of the reasons I decided not to attend the conference (I did initially volunteer) is that shit heads like Zwartz would go there, be treated with respect, then lie about it or slant it (the conference/atheists), in their reports and blogs. It pisses me off no end that he can unjustly impune people who want to make the world better and reasonable and be lauded for it, whilst being a pernicious, irrational arse who is respected because he's a memember of a mainstream cult. It seems horribly unfair. At least by not attending I keep an arms distance (well, 25 kms distance to be precise) and will not feel so personally agrieved by the inevitable slander and misrepresentation that occurs by Zwartz and fellows in the MSM. And any (miniscule) urges to publicly embarass myself by insulting or attacking Zwartz will be thusly avoided. I guess I'm not the most rational atheist out there. :)

(Besides, as much as I love Richard, P.Z. and others there's probably not a lot new I'd hear from them that I haven't already soaked up on the intertubes. I hope some bright, interesting, public types attend and are inspired to further the enlightenment project and secularism in Australia by that attendence.)

Posted by: raven | February 2, 2010 1:20 PM

Legion: "Oh. I didn't realize... I thought maybe he was into some cult or something."

Co-worker:

Legion: "Uh, I think I'm late for an appointment."

That is funny.

Many of my friends here on the coast are New Agers of a vast assortment. I just smile and nod. It is mostly harmless. They may talk forever about healing rituals and so forth but when they are sick they go to doctors like everyone else.

Posted by: Kemist | February 2, 2010 1:35 PM

It would be like the Hell's Angels holding a convention at the downtown Hilton.

Well... They do have those sort of meetings. Actually, some of them even got to meet the Queen of England some years ago - that was sort of a scandal here. Not all of them are bearded dudes riding harleys - some have respected legal businesses as well as their shadier ones.

The meetings are quite odd. The police usually hangs out outside, openly taking pictures and IDs of people attending, a sort of who's who of organized crime.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 2, 2010 2:29 PM

Actually, some of them even got to meet the Queen of England some years ago - that was sort of a scandal here.

Indeed it was: respectable thieves and drug-dealers hanging out with lowlifes like the Windsors! Whatever next?

Posted by: tsg | February 2, 2010 2:39 PM

we can all have a godless food convention! Which is probably very similar to any other food convention, minus any cannibalism.

You mean, except for the baby-eating, right?

Posted by: Hekuni Cat | February 2, 2010 2:54 PM

Thank you, Cuttlefish.

Posted by: Endor | February 2, 2010 3:12 PM

"Fuck you, you fuckity fucks! "

LOL. Oh man, I'm stealing this and making it a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Sastra | February 2, 2010 3:37 PM

davej #40 wrote:

I'm afraid that many self-declared young atheists have little interest in reason or science. All they want out of it is independence.

I've met some atheists who aren't particularly keen on the science and reason -- but they're very concerned about the moral problems connected to theism. They don't like religious organizations telling people what to do; they don't like religious believers telling people they're going to hell; they don't like the way religion "judges" and "condemns" other people. And they don't like the way God is like His followers: they turn Him into a bully.

In a sense, they're very similar to the religionists themselves, in that, they're not really considering the empirical evidence: they're riding on emotion. If the consequences of a belief are bad, then the belief must be false. They're atheists because they're nicer people, when they don't believe in God. This of course sounds suspiciously like those Christian apologetics which defend the existence of God by focusing on the moral benefits of believing. Instead, they defend atheism by focusing on the moral benefits of not believing.

Secular humanism isn't just the moral component: the method matters, and it comes first. These morality-driven atheists put it second, and it makes me uncomfortable. For one thing, a lot of faitheists seem to fall into this category. Oh, if only Christians would act more like Jesus; oh, if only faith ennobled people the way it should, instead of too often bringing out their worst; oh, if only people would just stop arguing over religion, and just respect each other, whatever they believe.

I've met some of these atheists in the UU; they're often active in church-state separation orgs. From what I can tell, they're less likely to be at atheist conventions, because just by having an atheist convention, they think we're being too 'judgmental.' What horrifies them about religion, is that it makes people think they're better than other people.

My guess is that Christians really like this version of atheism. It's familiar to the way they themselves approach belief. They're also probably optimistic that, if they can just show atheists how inspiring and positive religion can be -- and it can support all their moral intuitions -- then they'll convert them, and have a very satisfying response to why there are atheists. It's not about the evidence, or any line of reasoning. No, no, no. Look away from that. Concentrate on fulfilling deep needs of the heart. Right.

Posted by: Sastra | February 2, 2010 3:57 PM

Rox #66 wrote:

My parents neither taught me to believe in god or not to believe in god. I was allowed to learn about whatever religion I wanted and make up my own mind. THAT is true freedom of religion.

My parents did the same, and I pretty much followed that approach with my own children. What I did not want, was for my kids to get caught up in the idea that belief in God is a sign of being a special type of person. Even moderate and liberal religions tend to value faith as if it were a positive character trait that takes love and discipline. I wanted them to approach religion as hypotheses, and think them through as a series of fact claims.

I'm going to disagree a bit, though, with people above pointing out that atheist conventions are great places to talk about all sorts of stuff other than atheism. Well, yeah -- but if I fly halfway across the country and shell out big bucks for a hotel, I don't want to sit at dinner with people and discuss recipes, or families, or favorite movies, or the same damn stuff I can talk about at home with virtually anybody. I sure as hell don't want to do that more than I have to.

No. I want to talk shop. Arguments for and against God, atheist activism, war stories, humanism, ideas, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, fundy anecdotes, etc. So do most of the people there, I notice. And debates and disputes -- on topic.

I mean, people presumably don't go to science fiction conventions with the resolution to try to talk as little as possible about science fiction, so they can show outsiders they have a regular, normal life and science fiction doesn't define them.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the comments...

Posted by: Kliwon | February 2, 2010 4:25 PM

We had the Parliament of the World's Religions here in Melbourne in December 2009. I can imagine them greeting each other "Good morning, you filthy infidels!" But after that, what could they have possilbly talked about? Whose god actually did create the universe? Which god has the remote control to do the fine tuning?

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | February 2, 2010 5:20 PM

I'm going to the convention and I'm having trouble explaining to people what it's about.

What's also a problem is that to be seen as 'trying too hard' at certain things is considered very un-Australian. While most people here don't give a crap about religion (even if they do identify as Christian on things like the census), that's very different from actually expressing it and spending time with other people talking about it.

Overtly religious people are scorned for exactly the same reason. Believe what you want but don't appear to take any of it seriously. It's not sport, after all.

There is a strong undercurrent of religious political meddling in this country, but it's very, very subtle compared to how it is in the US. So anyone standing up and attempting to oppose something that the majority of people don't recognise as a problem is going to attract a somewhat negative response.

I've ended up saying that it (for me at least) is a lot to do with politics and how religious views get disproportionate representation in determining public policy. Once it's explained in that context - framed (if you will) as being more about politics than beliefs per se - they've appeared to understand my motivations a bit better.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | February 2, 2010 5:30 PM

Of course you are right that you don't pay to go to an atheist convention to swap recipes ;P

I don't know - have you read some of what the regulars write about being able to create? If Rev. Big Dumb Chimp and MAJeff* were both here I'd probably spend more time extracting recipes from them than listening to people talk about the non-existence of gods.

Heck, I already know why I don't believe there are gods. Cooking, on the other hand, I'm mostly clueless about...

*Apologies to any of Pharyngula's other gastronomic geniuses for leaving you out; it's just that these two are the first to come to mind when the topic of creative cookery comes up - I also follow MAJeff on Twitter and he's almost always talking about food!

Posted by: Barney | February 2, 2010 7:02 PM

Hello PZ.

It's gratifying to be noticed by a luminary such as yourself, but I think you misread me. Did you not read the whole thing because bursting into flames? Did you notice the conditional - IF the atheists who post on my blog are to be believed? That is because of an ongoing argument for three years on my blog about whether atheism in practice generally involves a worldview - and I'm pleased to have you confirm it (reason, evidence, science).

Did you not notice that I wrote positively about the convention, and how I look forward to going. It's true that I identify on my blog as a Christian, but my blog has always endorsed atheism as an internally coherent and rational approach. In news coverage for the paper my own position is irrelevant. At the convention, which I will be covering for my newspaper, I expect to learn things and to be challenged. I also expect to be irritated, as you evidently have been. So be it.

Incidentally, I did call up the organisers, and I have read the abstracts etc on the website. I am also pretty much the only journalist who has shown any interest since the convention was announced, though that will change by the time it starts.

Meanwhile, can I thank your posters such as mck9 and dkbuck for their fairness - a model to us all. Best wishes, Barney Zwartz, The Age

Posted by: Barney | February 2, 2010 7:26 PM

Self justification is always a bit unedifying, so I'll leave it at this:

Can I point out this paragraph on the blog. (The news article in the paper was properly neutral, apart from the value judgment in referring to a "stellar" line up of speakers.)

The case for the defence, the relevant par:

"That aside, what I do see listed looks fascinating, and I am looking forward enormously to covering it. Some speakers, including Richard Dawkins, broadcaster Philip Adams and Atheist Alliance International president Stuart Bechman have yet to identify their topics, but here are some of the highlights of those who have: Muslim activist Taslima Nasrin on her struggle for rights and secularism; English philosopher A.C. Grayling on atheism, secularism and humanism; Australia’s Peter Singer on ethics without religion; biologist P.Z. Myers on the conflict between science and religion; former evangelist Dan Barker on how his journey to atheism; lesbian comedian Sue-Ann Post on “20 years of kicking God in the shins”; and Max Wallace on how tax-payers subsidise religion."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 2, 2010 7:45 PM

Did you not notice that I wrote positively about the convention, and how I look forward to going.

I noticed where you sneered at reason. But since belief in gawds is anti-reason, I shouldn't be surprised at the sneer.

Posted by: Sastra | February 2, 2010 7:58 PM

yolande #84 wrote:

Obviously religion is a much bigger issue in the US and atheists there quite rightly have a lot to contend with, but let's not forget that internet commentary is dominated my Americans and their loud, unabashed manner creates the view that all atheists are militant, when the opposite is true.

"Americans and their loud, unabashed manner?" "Militant" atheists?

Oh, dear. I fear you're generalizing and stereotyping, and your use of the term "militant" is inappropriate in this context.

But then, that might be a bit loud, unabashed, and militant. Oh, dear.

Posted by: Kel, OM | February 2, 2010 8:20 PM

(As someone who mainly subsists on Diet Pepsi and supermarket ready meals, I'm personally somewhat mystified by this particular collective obsession.)

That is because of an ongoing argument for three years on my blog about whether atheism in practice generally involves a worldview - and I'm pleased to have you confirm it (reason, evidence, science).

There are plenty of atheists who are by no means supporters of the findings of science, and who readily promote unreasonable positions on various matters.

Posted by: Sastra | February 2, 2010 8:39 PM

"Atheism" isn't a world view, for the same reason "theism" isn't a world view: it's too narrow a subject, and too vague to have clear implications. "Atheism in practice" is usually the most common nontheistic philosophy: secular (or scientific) humanism.

Posted by: otrame | February 2, 2010 8:50 PM

Re #23

I know that Cuttlefish is the Poet Laureate of Pharyngula, but that one... All the usual adjectives are fine, but they've been used so often for his work. I need a stronger word than brilliant, beautiful, and heartbreaking.

We need another laudatory title to add to Cuttlefish's many awards for that one. I am no good at coming up with such things.

P.S. How the hell does he knock those out so fast?

P.P.S. Cuttlefish, I love you.

Posted by: FossilFishy | February 2, 2010 9:02 PM

Also from The Age Feb 2nd, also by Barney Zwartz:

''We were very annoyed that all three tiers of government refused to assist us,'' Mr Nicholls said.

He said Canberra bureaucrats said such funding was not part of the portfolio responsibility of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or his deputy, Julia Gillard, and provided no other advice.

The Victorian Government raised hopes, then suddenly told him ''the event has been secured, so you're not getting the money'', he said.

The Parliament of the World's Religions, held in Melbourne in December, received $2 million from the federal government and the state government.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Mr Nicholls is convention organiser and Atheist Foundation of Australia president David Nicholls.

I've been lurking here for a while, never commented before though. Pharyngula commenters make my level of education, reason, sarcasm and outrage seem inadequate to the task. :)

Oh, and:

Comments open up
Threading poetry deftly
Cuttlefish swims through

Posted by: John Morales | February 2, 2010 9:36 PM

Otrame,

How the hell does he knock those out so fast?

Cuttlefish is a genius, IMHO.

(Some people cuttlefish are just at the far end of the probability distribution, in a given talent.)

--

FossilFishy, welcome!

Posted by: truth machine, OM | February 2, 2010 10:09 PM

When I met PZ, I smiled and offered my hand and mentioned that I'm the only recipient of an OM that he has threatened to ban. He pointed out that he didn't actually ban me -- although I believe that's because I chose at the time to lay low for while to avoid it. His kind gentle words in response to my outreach were "You're very obnoxious". I think the obnoxiousness he experiences from me is that I don't treat him as a sacred cow, above criticism. I usually agree with him (and before the hypocritical threats to ban me I would regularly go out of my way to defend him), but not always, and here's a prime case. This post of his is extraordinarily stupid and oblivious, a rancid piece of quote mining, as the author goes on to mention a number of things that the people at the convention will talk about, and states that his comment about having nothing to talk about is a joke.

As we've come to expect, that's another hoodwinked, naively pro-religion commentator whose imagination is in a state of critical failure.

No, asswipe, it's not.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 2, 2010 10:22 PM

Here we go.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | February 2, 2010 10:33 PM

Probably a discussion that involves snowflakes and sheep. But I'm just guessing.

Patricia, your screen name reminds me of that Dan Akroyd character on SNL. "Jane you ignorant slut!"

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 2, 2010 10:46 PM

Rutee, Shrieking Harpy - Very astute SNL quote.

Shut up Brenda, you ignorant slut!

Posted by: apostrophobia | February 2, 2010 10:48 PM

While I do think Barney thought he was joking, the overall tone of the article is condescending, not funny.

This is theoretically true, but it’s a safe bet that the convention will deal only with a reductionist, mechanist universe. I don’t see any seminars on astral travelling or crystals.

My chief hope, unlikely to be fulfilled, is not too much fundamentalism please, and a fair representation of what they attack.

So he's telling us he expects speakers to reject astral traveling and crystals, (which is true but why is that statement even there?), and that the speakers will also lie and attack the religious.

So how is this a good thing?

Posted by: John Morales | February 2, 2010 11:17 PM

tm,

This post of his is extraordinarily stupid and oblivious, a rancid piece of quote mining, as the author goes on to mention a number of things that the people at the convention will talk about, and states that his comment about having nothing to talk about is a joke.

I don't think it's quote-mining, rather, it's singling out a portion of the opinion piece that PZ finds revealing and on which he in turn opines.
I note that PZ includes the entire paragraph (third of the piece), and furthermore links to the original.
(I grant that PZ did not include the asterisk leading to the foot-note where Barney claims that it is but a joke, or the foot-note itself.)

There's certainly an argument to be made (and it has been made, in the comments above) to the effect that this is a sly dig dressed up as a joke; to what extent it's tongue-in-cheek or indicative of a misunderstanding of atheism is disputable.

Posted by: Kel, OM | February 2, 2010 11:23 PM

This is theoretically true, but it’s a safe bet that the convention will deal only with a reductionist, mechanist universe. I don’t see any seminars on astral travelling or crystals.

Posted by: John Morales | February 2, 2010 11:36 PM

Kel,

I really don't get why the word reductionist is there. What is the fascination that so many have with that word?

I don't think it's meant literally; rather, I think it's code for 'materialist' (or, more accurately, 'non-supernaturalist').

Posted by: A. Noyd | February 2, 2010 11:43 PM

Kel (#109)

I really don't get why the word reductionist is there. What is the fascination that so many have with that word?

It's a way to say that scientific knowledge isn't really priveleged because scientific findings rely on simplifying what is complex and incomprehensible in reality. If the lens of science has enough flaws, then it's only as good as all the other "ways of knowing."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 2, 2010 11:44 PM

fuck off, dendy

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 2, 2010 11:47 PM

Oh come on Sven, raise my offer by a Jesus.

Posted by: professordendy | February 2, 2010 11:52 PM

{duck} kapow shazaam... the hits just keep coming! Man you guys are so fun yet so "not with it"... lol

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | February 3, 2010 12:06 AM

Hey dendy, what's that sound? Is it your wife getting a real man to do to her what you can't?

Posted by: Kel, OM | February 3, 2010 12:08 AM

I don't think it's meant literally; rather, I think it's code for 'materialist' (or, more accurately, 'non-supernaturalist').

In other words, it grounds metaphysics in reality as opposed to allowing for magic thinking. If that's Zwartz's point then I can get on board with that. Magic thinking is incoherent, and the universe is grand enough as is without needing to augment it with magic.

Posted by: professordendy | February 3, 2010 12:15 AM

while he's packin" mud no doubt!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 3, 2010 12:24 AM

Hey Dandy, where is the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity? The fact that you don't try to display here is conclusive evidence that you have no evidence, making you a delusional fool.

Posted by: professordendy | February 3, 2010 12:29 AM

Now I can't help it if every time I toss a bone out into the dung heap of Pharyngula, a bunch of "free thinkers" dive for it... what's a man to do, walk away from the fun and games?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 3, 2010 12:33 AM

Dandy, you have nothing. There isn't enough substance to you and your posts to be a good chew toy. You don't have enough intelligence and integrity to keep our coats sniny and our teeth free of tartar. You are ten day old fermenting mush.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | February 3, 2010 12:34 AM

oh that's a good one WowBagger... go for wife jokes... makes you a real man eh? lol

Old fuckface, seeing the hairballs that you call jokes, you are in no position to criticize. Also, seeing how you first came to this blog with lies and still refuse to address the issue, no one has any reason to believe you on any subject.

As I said before, I feel sorry for all the students you have had. You are not worthy of the respect.

Also, it is telling that you think that you are the only person here who wakes up with the one they love.

Posted by: Janet Holmes | February 3, 2010 12:38 AM

I'm going to the conference to meet PZ. I like Richard Dawkins too but PZ in soooo cuddly!

I'm really pissed off that the government refused to sponsor it, everything else gets bucket loads of our money (The Grand Prix costs about $80mil a year IIRC) so I don't see why we atheists aren't entitled to suck on the public tit as well! The lack of funding means the organisers have had to book smaller venues and if that means that there is not enough room to sit comfortably in PZ's talk then I'm really gonna be mad.

The religionists got 2 million last year as noted above. They also got several front page articles in The Age Newspaper where Barney blathers. These articles you will be astonished to hear asked no difficult questions, failed to point out that most of these people were obliged by their religions to kill each other on sight and generally made damned irritating reading.

I wonder what sort of coverage we will get. Any front pages for us do you think? I bet the sycophantic tone which even Australians who should know better use when around the religious, will be nowhere to be found. Thank Ceiling Cat for that anyway. I hope some other reporters who don't have an ax to grind come along.

It must be a weird job being religion reporter on an Australian newspaper. I'd be willing to bet most of the other reporters are atheists, and Australians generally consider talking about religion to be bad form. Of course most of the news about religion is yet another article about misbehaving priests.

Posted by: Miki Z | February 3, 2010 12:45 AM

dendy says

I have two back-stage passes for sale to the atheist convention... they were given to me... highest offer gets them!

I've now got 'pathological lying' on psychopath bingo now. Get your checklist here.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 3, 2010 12:47 AM

No fool, I'm with Nerd, show me your gawd or shut up. Trot out Jesus or fuck off.

This is a science blog we require proof.

Something new? Yeah, that would be proof of God. Show us.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 3, 2010 12:53 AM

Can't you think of something new?

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 3, 2010 1:06 AM

Can't you think of something new?

why should he, when you appear incapable of even beginning to address such a simple request?

I still want to know who is on your PhD thesis committee, or were you lying about that, too?

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 3, 2010 1:17 AM

I'll make you an offer Dendy, I'll bend the knee and kiss the ass of any God, dragon or unicorn you can produce.

Bring it on.

Posted by: The Silent Moose of Doom | February 3, 2010 1:20 AM

Extremely excited about the convention... even though it took me a while to afford the ticket. The Convention admin staff are brilliant and were really patient with me while I put the money together. :)

It may be a little too late for everyone who's already made accommodation plans, but I probably have some couch/mattress-on-floor space available if anyone wants it and doesn't mind spending time in a teeny tiny flat. I'm in the inner suburbs of Melbourne and about 10mins walk from the tram to the Convention Centre...

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 3, 2010 1:23 AM

I've now got 'pathological lying' on psychopath bingo now. Get your checklist

meh, he will never meet the Cunning/manipulative requirement.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | February 3, 2010 1:28 AM

We need better trolls. This Dendy fool is as tasteless as barley gruel.

Posted by: John Morales | February 3, 2010 1:34 AM

Ichthyic,

no, it is in fact a slightly different argument, a subset of the materialist argument, if you will.

I'm aware of that, which is why I wrote "I don't think it's meant literally".
I suspect that most who actually use the term in that derogatory manner are unaware of its technical meaning, or even of its raison d'être.

Posted by: FossilFishy | February 3, 2010 1:51 AM

ambulocetacean #94. Thank you. I'm not sure atheists should get gov money either, but if they're going to give it to religious conventions why not atheist ones as well?

John Morales #95. Cuttlefish is indeed a genius. Thanks for the welcome.

WowbaggerOM #110. I'm a Canadian ex-pat now living in rural Auz. My small town is heavily Catholic and yet I hear nothing about it. I've observed in the last year and a half that there's a cultural reticence about displaying one's faith. While it makes for a pleasant environment it also hides the true level of religiosity here. Hopefully the conference will stir things up enough to get a clearer picture of where people stand.

Posted by: Kamaka | February 3, 2010 1:55 AM

Ig Slut @ 151

We need better trolls. This Dendy fool is as tasteless as barley gruel.

Yah, I know. Why does anyone give this worthless, smug and arrogant blog-whore the time of day?

Posted by: ambulocetacean | February 3, 2010 2:45 AM

Oh yeah, anyone need a crash pad for the conference in Melbourne? I billeted a couple of Sri Lankan journos during the Commonwealth Games (the former British Empire Games) a few years ago, which was fun. They paid me off with bottles of Sri Lankan arak (hint, hint). Some guy from Sri Lanka won a weightlifting medal, as I recall...

Try me at [email protected]. I only made the address to troll the webs, but I might be able to remember the password.

Posted by: Kel, OM | February 3, 2010 3:27 AM

Oh yeah, anyone need a crash pad for the conference in Melbourne?

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | February 3, 2010 4:07 AM

Oh yeah, anyone need a crash pad for the conference in Melbourne?

I ended up booking a place in the city - but thanks for the offer anyway.

Posted by: ianmhor | February 3, 2010 4:29 AM

Dendy - troll pure and simple. Put him in the dungeon.

Posted by: FossilFishy | February 3, 2010 7:31 AM

ambulocetacean, Ah, the culture shock isn't too bad. Canada and Australia have pretty similar cultures. Sure they're differences but nothing too drastic. Mind you, I'm in the Alpine Shire of Victoria so it's not exactly beyond the black stump territory. (Does anyone say that anymore?)

Wowbagger mentioned the Family First whackaloons, that's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping I'd left behind in Alberta: the Texas of Canada.

I too thought WTF and decided to put in my two cents. I figure eventually I'm going to say something stupid and the regulars are going to slap me silly. No big deal, if I can't defend my position then maybe I need to educate myself more. Or maybe my idea will be truly wrong and I'll have to change my thinking. Nothing to worry about there. The only thing that still makes me hesitate is that I may come to crave that smack down. Where does that end? With me in a gimp suit yelling "There's no transitional fossils!" and "Half a wing is not a wing!"? I can't afford to pay people to role-play Janine, Patricia and/or Nerd.

Anyway we're way off topic on this thread. See you in the Neverending thread perhaps.

Oh, I haven't heard of Araldite. We're mostly a Clag sorta family, comes with having a 2 year old artistic genius running around the place. :)

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | February 3, 2010 10:07 AM

Someone just name checked the original Gruesome Trio. I am getting misty eyed with nostalgia.

BDSM Queens are pretty expensive...

Those outfits make of leather and of latex are rather costly.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 3, 2010 11:33 AM

FossilFishy, you should be able to find an old, fat, and bald wino to play me for cheap. Just don't let him near the grog first.

Posted by: tsg | February 3, 2010 1:23 PM

I was promptly told that, since I wasn't old enough to understand or be making decisions about such things, I was in fact just trying to be rebellious and that bucking church was merely the strongest way I could think of to accomplish this.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that many of davej's "self declared young atheists" are in fact asking many of the same questions we are and not getting satisfactory answers. They may not be declaring an interest in science and reason, but that is what they are practicing, whether they know it or not. You don't have to take a college level logic course to understand that "god is real because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god" doesn't hold up.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | February 3, 2010 2:49 PM

Perfectly aware. Specially fitted, specialty stuff, after all. Not that I know anything about that, of course.

Would you like a sample?

(Seriously, I am trying to sound seductive here.)

Posted by: FossilFishy | February 3, 2010 6:41 PM

The Gruesome Trio?
Fearfully he backs away.
Safeword on his lips.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | February 3, 2010 10:46 PM

ambulocetacean,

I did end up finding it - for whatever reason the way that site is formatted makes it hard to use the search function.

A pity I hadn't noticed it earlier; I'd have pointed out that the poster in question didn't seem to have a problem with all the Christians on the site copying and pasting huge chunks of the bible in their comments.

Not to mention the fact that they also neglected to include any refutation of the point I'd made.

Posted by: ambulocetacean | February 3, 2010 11:16 PM

Yeah, it's dumb the way they do that, and especially the way they smugly end their posts with some random bible verse, as if it's the equivalent of saying QED.

If I could be arsed trolling there I'd make a point of ending my posts with random verses too, all the rapey/incesty/animal sacrificey bits.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | February 3, 2010 11:46 PM

Would you like a sample?

I think you automatically lose your Loud, Unabashed, and Militant© card if you say "Oh, dear!" I mean, I'll have to double-check the bylaws, but I'm pretty sure....

Yeah, it's dumb the way they do that, and especially the way they smugly end their posts with some random bible verse, as if it's the equivalent of saying QED.

Posted by: John Morales | February 4, 2010 12:01 AM

Rutee,

What if it's "Oh dear, get the fireaxe, there are Jehovah's Witnesses at the door"?

Rutee Addams, I presume? :)

Posted by: Miki Z | February 4, 2010 12:39 AM

Yes, decretum means decree, though I may have the wrong declension -- I looked it up in a dictionary, as I don't actually speak latin. I'm not a big fan of "QED" at the end of a proof, I prefer just a square. Historic proofs get exempted in the same way that proofs not written in English do: it's not their fault they didn't know better.

Posted by: aharleygyrl | February 4, 2010 2:21 AM

well, the author said it was a joke. so, i will take it as that, but if it wasn't, i have 2 things to say about the following:

But, if the atheists who post on this blog are to be believed, they have nothing in common with each other except a lack of belief in “imaginary friends”.

Atheists can and do believe in astrology, ghosts, New Age philosophies and many other things we might categorise as paranormal.

1. what's wrong with the commonality of a lack of belief? Man, they just don't get it, do they!

2. i call bullshit. atheists who believe in ghosts are not real atheists. wow, no wonder religious people don't understand us, they think we are all getting our palms read and cursing god to be assholes.

Posted by: aharleygyrl | February 4, 2010 2:48 AM

i knew someone would get pissed. sorry, i don't believe a true atheist believes in ghosts. no one has any proof of ghosts or ufo's or santa claus. shove it Kel OM, i don't give a rat's ass if what other atheists think about it. so, in my book if you say you have seen ghosts, but you're an atheist, i will say re-think that one. seeing ghosts and seeing gods are the same thing. i never said there were not weirdo atheists out there who believe in ghosts. you analytical-types can be a pain in the ass, always going by the book. jesus, lighten up!

Posted by: Rorschach | February 4, 2010 3:32 AM

aharleygyrl,

. seeing ghosts and seeing gods are the same thing. i never said there were not weirdo atheists out there who believe in ghosts.

You might enjoy reading Bruce Hood's book "Supersense" on the subject of supernatural beliefs.

Lots of atheists unfortunately believe in irrational or supernatural stuff.
Not believing in gods is just that, no immunity to other superstitions or irrational thoughts follows from it.

Posted by: aharleygyrl | February 4, 2010 3:56 AM

"aharleygyrl, you sound a lot angrier than Kel"

LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

i get called stupid and i seem angry about that. well no shit, sherlock. lol!!