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.



  1. secularvoters said,

    No, we didn’t demonstrate at the Interfaith Gathering to protest “not being invited to an event they have zero interest in anyway.”

    If you had read the article you would have seen that we did have a great interest in the event. If you still don’t get it, then read the open letter to the Democratic Party on the subject here:


  2. dietcoupon said,

    That’s totally fair – I like the letter. This is a long conversation though, ill-suited to blog comments, but I’ll just say this – it’s difficult to appoint a non-religious representative, speaker, or include them in the whole shebang when non-religious comes in so many different flavours. I am an entirely different breed of non-religious than PZ Myers, for example, and I would be enraged were he to speak on my secular behalf. Perhaps that can be a problem for the non-religious community to work on – how to be cohesive without really being cohesive.

    If you read the rest of the blog, however, you’ll see my stance – I really, really abhor the rebranding of ‘atheist’ as a religion.

    That doesn’t change PZ’s unfair juxtaposition, however. Or the fact that protesters were still treated more fairly at this conventions than at the RNC four years ago. I wonder what the GOP will to do and about protesters next week?

  3. secularvoters said,

    Atheism is not a religion. Religious people get outraged when religious leaders speak on the behalf of their religion as well, just like when Donahue speaks for Catholics, etc. Anyone leader worth their salt will say that they speak for themselves and not for all people of the same identity. Hopefully people are all smart enough to realize that no one person speaks for other people of the same identity, be is blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. The mere fact that they declined to have a non-religious speaker even after they were asked to have one and speakers were offered is the problem. In my view, “Interfaith” includes people with no faith. The whole idea of “Interfaith” is to hear from and have representation from people of all different backgrounds and beliefs, and this of course includes people who don’t believe in gods or who do not belong to an organized religion. If people that don’t belong to an organized are always excluded from “Interfaith” events, then their voices will not be heard to the same degree, their views will not be respected to the same degree, as members of the community they will not be recognized to the same degree, their values will not be discussed to the same degree, etc.

    And here I want to point out again that non-religious includes people who believe in some “supreme being”, sometimes that they call God. There are non-religious God believers, this goes to people like Thomas Paine, Thoreau, Walt Whitman, my grandparents, etc. These folk believe in God, but never go to church and generally look down on preachers religious institutions, etc. This constitutes a large portion of American society. So, at least from my perspective, this was never just about “atheists”, it was always about the broadest definition of the non-religious. And, from my perspective again, it is these voices that are often so important to hear from, as these people, the deists, humanists, atheists, etc., are typically the independent thinkers and social activists and anti-authoritarians, etc. If you “Interfaith” gather is just a collection of different orthodoxies then you really aren’t getting very much perspective, you are just getting the same line of thinking from different institutions.

  4. RichardFineMan said,

    -“even while being aware of silly things like string theory and the geocentric model of the universe ”

    Why are you comparing or contrasting the two?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: