PZ Myers Thinks Atheism Will Save The World

September 7, 2008 at 12:39 am (Uncategorized)

At least he’s letting somebody else be the retard this time.

And what has atheism done for science? Well, let’s see: it removed the risk of scientists being burned at the stake for controverting the divinely revealed truth that “the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever” (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes).

Actually, i think setting sail westward to get away from the European theocracy took care of that one.  Nice try, though.

It removed the necessity of having to distort observations, facts, experimental results and observations to fit an antecedent doctrine as far from what observation and experiment revealed as one could possibly get. (Think about seeing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope in an age when the earth was – by order! – at the centre of the universe and man and his man-made religion was the most important thing in it, with the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition daring you to think otherwise.)

Here he confuses religion and politics.  No matter what PZ and his ilk will say about separating religion and education, you can never, ever try to segregate religion from politics.  Some people were protesting this truth at the DNC – fine, but you can’t just erase millennia of history.  It wasn’t a silly belief in a silly god that made these rules, but rather the power, money, and influence of the rulers, as well as their intent to keep on ruling.

In short, it liberated the mind and enquiries of mankind.

Oh, how open minded you are, dear writer!

Decreasing religious hegemony and rapidly increasing scientific and technological knowledge have gone pari passu during the last four centuries, in mutually reinforcing tandem: the less religion, the more science; the more science, the less religion. And this is a universal phenomenon (see the Pew polls on the decline of religion, even in the USA).

Oh, I love it when they do all the work for me.  His first statement about religious hegemony is quite true – this is specifically the notion that one church and one church only is in charge of things.  But reducing this hegemony and watching science thus flourish is NOT tantamount to “less religion.”  It is, logically, necessarily the opposite: with less political pressure from the theocratic ruling class, people are freer to follow whichever faith they so choose.



Permalink 2 Comments

PZ Myers Is An Endless Distortion

August 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm (Uncategorized)

In his self-righteous rational crusade, PZ Myers is very, very angry at the Democratic National Convention.

Of course he bitches and moans about his pet cause first:

The Coalition of Secular Voters protested the interfaith alliance garbage. This demonstration went well, but was largely ignored, of course — the democratic leadership has their sights set on yet another faith-based political experience.

RIght, so Athiests went to interfaith celebrations to protest not being invited because they don’t have any faith.  Wait, uh..so they made a conscious effort to protest not being invited to an event they have zero interest in anyway.  What a bucket of fools.  PZ continues:

What’s the harm, you might say. Well, here’s the harm: by prioritizing superstitious ignorance over evidence-based reality, the Democratic Party is sliding away from the positions that actually motivate my support.

Sounding like a broken record, but Atheism is NOT “evidence-based reality.”  A deity is a deity BECAUSE it defies evidence; you have to be really arrogant about our species and our scientific knowledge – even while being aware of silly things like string theory and the geocentric model of the universe – to think that we can rationally deduce the cause of the order behind things.  Not only is PZ insufferably morally arrogant, he’s intellectually arrogant as well.  Not a good thing to be if you’re actually committed to the proper use of, and the improvement of the scientific method.  What a load.

It gets even better though.

Even worse, a party that acts in defiance of the principles of a free democratic state is anathema. Some demonstrations were not treated at all well. I got a letter from Nathan Acks that recounts his experiences…and it is not reassuring at all.

The letter is pretty longwinded, and infuriating from a certain angle.  but if you actually read the letter, the writer’s experiences don’t have anything at all to do with PZ’s pet cause.  By putting both accounts in the same article, he may be subconsciously trying to establish a faulty link.  I bet there weren’t any atheists protesting the interfaith stuff arrested, but the association wouldn’t be too difficult if you weren’t reading carefully.

Besides which, the writer was arrested in a mass arrest, and seemed to have been treated fairly enough after due process at the station.

PZ seriously needs to stop fighting the only chance he has at a non-theocratic state.  The US is in serious trouble, and we just can’t afford to have people shitting on the wrong party right now.

Permalink 4 Comments

PZ Myers Doesn’t Get It

August 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm (Uncategorized)

I wouldn’t get so pissed off at his cute little rants if he didn’t begin with faulty axioms:

An elementary school in Missouri has been allowing the Gideons to distribute bibles to students on their lunch hour. It’s crazy stupid, a clear violation of the separation of church and state (not that fundie churches care about that anymore).

First, seperation of church and state has never, and probably will never, apply to public schools.  Receiving state funding is not necssarily tantamount to being the state itself.  The school didn’t even necessarily have anything to do with the Gideons being there in the first place.  They have an annoying way of just showing up and distributing bibles.

But you know what?  The vast majority of people in Missouri – especially rural Missouri – are Christians anyway, if not even fundamentalists.  Hell, the parents were probably just happy not to have to pay money for bibles for their kids.

Besides which, these Gideons are probably shouting something like “FREE BIBLES RIGHT THIS WAY!” as opposed to “EVERYTHING IN THESE PAGES ABSOLUTELY MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY AT FACE VALUE!”  There just isn’t a nice ring to it.  I defy you to read the Book of Job, or many of the Proverbs, and not get something out of it, religious or not though you may be.  God (and, later, Jesus) contains the vernacular through which the Bible communicates, but if you can’t take anything as metaphor I really hope you didn’t try to read Animal Farm in middle school.

Finally, as a public school is public property, there’s nothing they can do to prevent anyone being there unless they are specifically threatening children.  No, giving them free paper does not constitute a “threat.”  And even if they WERE kicked out from school property, I’m sure there’s a perfectly good sidewalk right there for them to do the exact same thing on.

It’s called freedom of speech, asshole.

Permalink 1 Comment

PZ Myers Fails To Realize: It’s The Politics, Stupid

August 22, 2008 at 7:18 pm (Uncategorized)

I hope all that high-blood pressure is working wonders for his health.  He’s got his panties all in a wad over this one:

It’s the usual Democratic strategic inanity of pushing to ape the Republicans instead of even trying to be a party of progressive ideas, so they’re going to promote futile religious bullshit at their convention. This just makes me furious.

So what, are you going to vote for the Replublicans instead?  And how dare those Democrats, who haven’t won any political contest appreciably in over fifteen years, try to edge in on the religious base that tends to lean Republican?  They shouldn’t try to win, that’s madness!  Here’s the offending headline:


Wow, I’m angry already!  What is this common good of which they speak?  Let’s read on:

“Senator Obama is a committed Christian, and he believes that people of all faiths have an important place in American life,” said Joshua Dubois, Obama For America Director of Religious Affairs. “He’s proud to work with the Democratic National Convention Committee on a Convention that fully engages people of faith in dialogue, celebration and prayer. We are honored that so many religious leaders are reaching across partisan and ideological lines in this Convention to address the values that matter to Americans.”

“Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith – and this Convention will demonstrate that in an unprecedented way,” said Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC. “As Convention CEO and a pastor myself, I am incredibly proud that so many esteemed leaders from the faith community will be with us to celebrate this historic occasion and honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party.”

Forgetting for the moment the suspicion that Obama is a closet atheist, it’s somewhat encouraging tho think of the diversity of religious leaders here.  The very notion of being a religious leader implies the stringent belief that your specific faith is the absolute correct one; being willing to work with others with beliefs differing from your own in cooperation for the benefit of one’s country is a bad thing….how?

Besides which, if you think secluar ideals should be respected and upheld in the law at all, Democrats are pretty much your only shot at this point in American politics.  Financial support for faith-based community groups is very, very different from the disgusting brand of pro-abstinence taching Republicans call “sex-ed.”  If the Democrats want to win, they absolutely have to woo believers into voting for them, there’s just no question about that.

PZ quips:

There are more details that follow, with day-by-day announcements of invocations and benedictions and meetings led by people like the vapid Jim Wallis, that I’ve cut off. You don’t want to go, anyway.

Of course you don’t, you’re reading PZ’s retarded blog.  And who the hell is he to call anybody else vapid?

I am particularly annoyed by the claim that “Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith” — which I take as a declaration that I can’t be a Democrat.

Bullshit.  PZ has tons of faith in his lack of faith.  On a broader level, Democrats are a people of faith – in order to have progressive ideals, you absolutely have to have faith in your government to enact social programs rightly and not embezzle tax money, as well as faith in your contemporaries to be good, decent people.  Without faith in others, you end up supporting totalitarian regimes much in the vein of what Republicans seek.

If they actually invited an atheist to join in the “dialogue, celebration and prayer”, he would be obligated to rebuke the assembled crowd. The dialogue would consist of informing them all that the United States has a secular government, the Democrats are obligated to fill the role of a secular party, and there should be no place for superstitious nonsense in the hard work of governing.

God damn, the very notion that PZ puts forth here of some kind of Atheist pastor goes against all of his cawing about Atheism not beling a religion.  At least, he’s got to stop acting like it is one if he wants to maintain ANY credibility here.  Besides which, why fully rebuke a crowd that may very well be chock full of atheists?  Such rebuking is no obligation, just proof that his brand of Atheism promotes intolerance and hatred.

Also, sorry to shit on his self-reighteous parade, but the United States was formed by deists.  Having a government that doesn’t dip its dirty fingers in the honey jar of organized religion DOES NOT mean that it itself is secular.  If it were, Roe v. Wade would have been a non-issue.  Democrats have no such obligation as he claims, either – they have only ever fielded Christian presidential candidates, and none of them have ever discussed being a Democrat in purely secular terms.  I can understand being an idiot, but lying makes PZ a dick.

There is also nothing to celebrate. Our country has been wracked by an assemblage of idiots ruling in the name of greed and god, and the time has come to restore rational Enlightenment values to the United States of America, not return to benighted medievalisms, and that people of faith ought to confine their silly hobbies to the halls of their churches and keep them out of the state.

They’re not idiots – they succeeded in coming to power, something PZ will never, ever do.  Don’t confuse being stupid with being amoral.  They use the name of God because it gives the invoker a lot of power – the confidence of believers, and the moral righteousness to do whatever they want.  I’m only thankful that PZ is forced to confine his silly hobbies to the Internet – thank God he wasn’t invited to speak at the DNC, he’d destroy Obama’s reputations.

As for prayer … what a waste of time and effort and imagination. Take your useless pleading to a nonexistent and unresponsive deity and go hide away in shame and do it in private — it’s the equivalent of masturbation, only it provides an even lesser sense of accomplishment.

Oh, fuck off. PZ obviously has no idea what prayer is for; those who do it don’t necessarily believe that god is listening to every word. So what if it makes them feel better about life, helps them remember the names of members of extemded family, helps them sleep as part of a lifelong bedtime routine, provides words to turn to in moments of stess and confusion, provides a distraction when shit is hitting the fan, provides a stable anchor in these troubled and ever-changing times?  Such things should not be shameful.  What is shameful is forcing shame onto something so human and visceral, something so helpful and ingrained in the human brain.

PZ’s retarded banter only serves as proof of that religious sector in one’s brain – he speaks with the vitriol of a fire-and-brimstone minister.

People of faith are welcome to contribute to politics. In order to do so, however, they will have to get off their knees, unclasp their hands, and do something productive.

So…people of faith are welcome in politics, as long as they hide every shred of evidence of said faith.  Awesome.  Who said this retard got to make up the rules of politics, anyway?  Clasping one’s religious hands can gain the votes of great numbers of the faithful.  That is very, very fucking productive.

And that’s why they haven’t invited any godless rationalists to their party of pandering to fools.

No, they didn’t invite assholes like you because you’ll alienate almost everybody they need in order to win this election.

Permalink 1 Comment

PZ Myers Shits On Belief In Miracles

August 22, 2008 at 5:15 pm (Uncategorized)

It is wholly unconscionable to him that 63% of eastern Iowa respondants to a poll think that God has intervened to revive patients that doctors ruled were hopeless cases.

Face it, douchebag – when all logic fails to explain a miraculous recovery, there’s a legitimate excuse to have faith.  It’s not like doctors came in the night to perform a super-experimental wonder cure unbeknownst to the afflicted and their family, at least as long as Dr. House isn’t on the hospital staff.

As an agnostic (more or less) it’s difficult for me to say this, but it’s true – the will to believe is a very potent force.  It defies comprehension but works anyway.  More than one would imagine, a patient can choose whether to live or die, how hard to fight, how to feel about the situation, and this approach can have a significant effect on the prognosis.

Is it God, or depressed levels of stess having a positive effect on the immune system?  Does it matter? These people got better in spite of what their doctors thought, and PZ thinks it’s okay to shit on their belief in whatever was more effective than medicine in saving their lives.

Permalink 3 Comments

PZMinion Went Out With A Pathetic Whimper

August 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm (Uncategorized)

God, I’m glad they’re all gone.

Danio had some issues with the notion that doctors may be allowed to refuse performing abortions due to personal morals codes and conscience.  Dead babies for everybody!

I personally have no issues with abortion – a child in a loveless home will have a horrible upbringing, and there can be severe emotional repercussions when a mother puts a newborn up for adoption.  Not that I oppose adoption, but it’s a choice that should be made carefully and with deep consideration of the effects of gestation and childbirth.

Danio replies to this quote from HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt:

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

Why yes, yes it might.  It’s also extraordinarily unlikely.  I think this all goes back to the Hippocratic Oath taken by each doctor, presented here in part:

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

The abortive remedy part probably shouldn’t be taken too literally – I believe it would mean something more like, don’t treat a pregnant woman in a way that will endanger the child, if there are viable alternatives.  But this oath importantly provides for the moral conscience of the practitioner, not to provide treatments they would consider harmful.  This is to say, had my Mormon father become a doctor, he still would NEVER agree to perform an abortion, as he personally considers this to be very harmful.  According both to the all-important oath and the HHS, this is within his rights.

It’s a lot like the damn cracker/host issue – what’s good for you is good for you, and what’s good for me is good for me.  For crying out loud, don’t go around forcing doctors to do what they consider to be KILLING PEOPLE.  I would be absolutely shocked if so many doctors elected not to do abortions, that it became difficult to obtain one if necessary.  This is especially true considering the part where a doctor who morally opposes abortion wouldn’t adopt a specialty that would potentially involve performing abortions.

Danio responds:

I can scarcely get my mind around the fact that he is so openly, unapologetically endorsing a policy in which pious opinion would trump secular law. Once again, though, it shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, he himself states that “The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn”. Ah yes, even as they indiscriminately leech the quality of life (if not the life itself) from countless other self-aware, functioning humans on the planet, each and every blastocyst they encounter is ceremoniously wrapped in a mantle of sanctimonious protection.

Right.  First, opinion doesn’t trump law – just because abortion is legal, does NOT mean that a doctor MUST perform an abortion when asked.  It’s legal for my buddy to share my lunch, but that doesn’t mean I have to fork it over when asked.  Moreover, the moral opinion of said abortion-opposed doctors does not prevent the person seeking abortion to find a doctor willing to do it, nor does it have any impact whatsoever on those willing doctors and clinics.

This is without touching the sanctimonious tripe that forms the second half of that paragraph.  To say that the unborn “leech the quality of life from countless other self-aware, functioning humans” is a horrible thing to say, especially given that a) she clearly didn’t think that when pregnant with her own questionable bundles of joy, and b) the afflicted self-aware, functioning human had to have made a number of mistakes to wind up preggers in the first place.*

Although the final draft no longer contains the specific language broadening the definition of “abortion” to include anything from “conception” onward, it still threatens to withhold Federal money if health care organizations don’t allow their employees to exercise their rights of conscience.

Oh how horrible – medical institutions won’t get government money if they force their practitioners to unwillingly perform what might be thought of as morally questionable procedures.  If the happy godless want the religious to respect their “beliefs” (or lack thereof) so much, they might find they’ll get somewhere by practicing that same respect.

I must again emphasize that nowhere in this whole mess was a woman’s basic right to abortion EVER threatened.  It’s almost like Danio’s just trying to get pissed off.

*I am well aware that unfortunate incidents do happen – a good friend of mine accidentally got his wife pregnant while she was on depo-provera.  She had a beautiful baby girl, and the happy parents love their accident child to bits.  And my friend’s wife would have had no trouble getting an abortion if that’s what she’d wanted.

Permalink Leave a Comment

All apologies

August 22, 2008 at 2:53 pm (Uncategorized)

I know I haven’t updated in a good while; life has been very interesting as of late.  Normally I complain that life is boring, but in the last week I’ve come to appreciate the beauty of a solid routine.  It’s kind of like school uniforms – you complain that you have no creative control over what you wear, but at the same time that’s one less thing you have to think about in the morning.

At any rate, I am now combing through Pharyngula’s recent posts, and if he hasn’t disappointed, neither will I!

Permalink Leave a Comment

PZ Myers Is Speaking At A Convention

August 16, 2008 at 9:29 am (Uncategorized)

Is it about the emergent experimental tools available for use in your local bio lab?  Of course not, it’s a gathering of Atheists!  And PZ will be lying through his teeth:

Atheism is a natural consequence of the scientific way of looking at the world; furthermore, the scientific perspective is ascendant.

No, and no.  The consequence of looking at the world scientifically is the observation of a haunting complexity rising out of chaos – ESPECIALLY if you’re a biologist like PZ Myers.  And the scientific perspective is more reductionist than ascendant.  At least, if you’re following in the way of Galileo, Newton, Einstein…

Myers will explain why the new atheism is a reasonable and predictable product of our culture, and why that should give us hope for a more secular future.

A more secular future is less a hope than a nightmare.  What if everybody acted like a Generation-Xer who isn’t reproducing for the sake of disposable income?  God is also a pretty good excuse for believers not to commit crimes, and to pay attention and respect to their families.  Clearly they are ruining our world!

In addition to PZ, Michael Newdow (the plaintiff in the suit against “under God” in the pledge) and Jeremy Hall (the plaintiff in the suit against atheist discrimination in the army) will be there, along with other luminaries such as Michael Shermer, Julia Sweeney, and a special surprise awardee for the 2008 Richard Dawkins Award.

Ugh, people are actually PAYING for this?  The Pledge has been raped and mangled regardless of this “under God” tripe, I don’t understand why atheists would WANT entrance into the army, and calling Julia Sweeny a luminary is kind of like calling Woody Allen an upstanding moral figure.

Permalink 6 Comments

PZMinion Won’t Give Up The Cracker

August 15, 2008 at 12:03 pm (Uncategorized)

Just when you think you’ve heard enough about it.  Crackergate will be a scandal our kids will keep tabs on at this rate.  Regardless, this guest blogger tries to justify the whole mess through analogy…and for some reason thinks the point is even clearer when you have a disageeable protagonist!

…like a religious person!

I guess his analogy is technically correct, and probably the cleanest attempt so far to justify PZ’s actions…in context, which seems to be very important even though this happened over the Internet, out of context.  Oh well.

What if it had been this way:

A devout Christian student at a public university named Winslow Cork goes to an on-campus meeting of the Gay-Lesbian Support Group. He accepts the rainbow pin they give him, and then, when they ask him to tell his story, he announces that he is a Christian, and he is going to support them by warning them that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who don’t repent will burn in hell. He contemptuously turns the pin upside down, puts it on, and leaves.

Thanks for stopping by, jackass!  And even if you flip this around – a gay person crashes Sunday School in an attempt to open the minds of fundamentalists – it’s still pretty absurd, ineffective, naive, etc.

I myself will offer up an analogy – a friend of mine endeavoured to go to EVERY SINGLE club at his university which held meetings on campus.  As student clubs received university funding, he was technically entitled to go to any meeting he wanted, regardless of how appropriate it may be, so he wanted to test it out.  A lot of groups – like the anarcho-feminist one – appreciated this effort.  The Northern Chinese student society, not so much.  They screamed at him to get out, held a pissy meeting in which they clearly did not do what they had been planning on, and adjourned.

You can go on about the student handbook, go on about what you’re technically allowed to do, but at the end of the day you most certainly get a sense of a belief system being both unwanted and uncalled for in a given context – like a white person in an ethnic meeting, or godlessness in a church.  Reading these clues is part of being a socially conscious human being.

That is, being “allowed” to do something doesn’t justify being a prick.

Reaction is swift – and intense. This particular gay support group doesn’t just call him a snot and yell at him to never come back. They swing into action. Cork’s name is publicized, and he is accused of being a bigot, and worse. His actions are compared to the murder of Matthew Shepard, and what the Nazis did. The argument is that people who are often victimized have been attacked, and therefore it should be treated as a serious attack. The campus gay rights activists demand that Cork be charged with a hate crime, and expelled from the university. After all, he violated the sanctuary of those who are understandably sensitive to such violations. Cork is inundated with hate mail, starts getting death threats, and returns the rainbow pin, hoping things will calm down.

Apparently, this particular prick is operating somewhere like New England or California, where support for alternate lifestyles is very, very strong in the community.  Kind of like how the athiest cracker-nut pulled his little stunt in the deep South, where support for Jesus is very, very strong in the community.  Oops.

Way to enlighten us on the context of the situation.  Don’t call it context and give me an asinine soap opera devoid of the relevant bits…the context, if you will.

Instead, a nationally syndicated gay rights columnist joins in, and, rather than expressing horror over the death threats, only escalates the matter. This kid and his disrespectful, hate-filled religious viewpoint should not be expressed in an America where all citizens respect each other. Religion should be a purely private matter, kept behind closed doors. Speaking out and hurting the feelings of those who prefer the same sex by telling them they’re damned to hell is un-American. It violates their rights. This incident will be used to send a message, and hopefully get the law involved.

Um…yes?  Is there a problem here?  Don’t mind the part where only religious types can be hateful – everybody can be hateful, and they just spend their lives looking for excuses.  Whether it’s a godful or godless excuse doesn’t really matter, as if the Crusades wouldn’t have happened without God, Jesus, and Mohammad in the mix.  Bullshit.

In another university, a humanities professor named XY Nyers reads about this, and is appalled. He’s a Christian, and is furious at the over-reaction. Enough is enough. There is no right to not be offended by religion. Whether Cork should have gone into that room or not, informing gay people that the Bible condemns them should not be considered criminal hate speech, or treated like an act of violence. This point needs be made, and forcefully. He then vows on his popular website to film himself reading Leviticus out loud while he breaks apart a Gay-Lesbian Support Group rainbow pin – and he does it.

Shockingly, this part illustrates one of religion’s myriad benefits – without the code set forth in Leviticus, many more ancient Jews would have died from eating unsafe food and making unwise lifestyle chocies.  Do you know how many infections can be prevented by circumcision?  And when your people are on the lam from society, reproducing and not worrying so much about your man-crush on Joey over there is pretty important, too.  Oh, and don’t eat shellfish!

That so isn’t the point of this analogy though – the point is clearly that retaliation is justified.  And I guess it is, kind of.  However, it’s retarded to retaliate in a manner just as offensive as the original incident, if not even moreso.  Write essays on your blog on the internet, but don’t get all indignant when people react negatively to your self-righteous display the same way they did to the first one.

This is to say, if pounding on the door doesn’t work, go get a damn crowbar instead of pounding harder and whining about how it isn’t working.

He knew damn well it would hurt others, and piss people off, and result in death threats. Is pissing that many people off to make his point worthwhile?

I say yes. In this case, under these circumstances, it would be worth it. And I am an atheist who is in favor of gay rights, and want people to be sensitive and respectful to different sexual orientations. But I deliberately chose a protagonist and story I have less sympathy for, to illustrate that it’s not simply about rooting for a “side.” You have to take context into account.

Yes, you do!  Except this poster didn’t.  In all honesty, this little analogy doesn’t prove jack.  It’s really easy to write a blog post saying that if this number of absurd hypotheticals took place, he’d still be on the side of the hateful religious fundamentalist.  I mean, how forgiving are Pharyngulites when religious people comment on posts?

If you want to be sensitive and respectful towards other points of view, don’t barge in on where and when they do what they do just to spit on them.  That is essentially what this poster has tried to justify through this little experiment, and to be perfectly honest, I’m less sympathetic to the atheist side in this whole issue now.

And I don’t even believe in Jesus!

Permalink 2 Comments

PZMinion Thinks Atheism Needs a Symbol

August 12, 2008 at 9:00 am (Uncategorized)

Not a religion, you say?  Aw, but it looks so much more organized when you have a symbol.  Like this one:


Funny how closely it resembles the Anarchist symbol.

Why, PZMinion marvels, you could make this a necklace, a tattoo, etch it in the sand!

I, on the other hand, will get right to work defacing it into something resembling the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in whom I believe with all my heart.

But at the very least, atheists absolutely cannot assign themselves a symbol like this, use it, and then turn around and protest when people describe their movement as a religion unto itself.  I can continue to respect atheists who claim to be unorganized, as long as they don’t sport this thing.  If you’re going to require solidarity as a group, you have to accept the responsibilities and insinuations which come along with it.  If I see this symbol graffitied onto a single wall, Atheists get to stop clamoring about how religion is all up in their faces, as they are every day becoming ever more like the forces they oppose so vehemently.

I guess I just wonder how far this thing will reach, how many people will actually see it as something viable to be used.  I’ll have my eyes open.

Permalink 12 Comments

Next page »