Check out the pulp edition of the Carnival of the Godless — it’s got pulp superheroes narrating the action. I never quite imagined Occam as a ham-fisted bruiser, but OK…
If you prefer a softer approach than those scary godless atheists, there’s also a Humanist Symposium available today.
As usual, Revere has a short, clear sermonette. He does make one mistake, though: he compares theology to a chess game in which there are many intricacies, but that the details don’t mean anything about how you should govern your life. “Chess” is the wrong answer. It’s more like Calvinball. That’s right, Calvinball. Calvinball is the correct answer. Otherwise, it seems to have garnered a lot of comments from the usual tiresome suspects who emerge to bitch and moan about bad, bad atheists who dare to say what they think without softening the blow.
Wilkins despairs. He’s discovered an archive of anti-creationist literature from the ’20s and 30s, and notes that nothing has changed, and his expectation that the religious would abandon creationism to strengthen their own agendas has failed. Buck up, John! No one expects rapid social change on something so deep-rooted, and even though I aspire to see religion reduced to nothing but a sad punchline to a bad old joke, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, or my children’s lifetime, or even my grandchildren’s (if any). Don’t moan about the distance to the destination, savor the journey! Or in this case, Oy! Enjoy the brawl!
Reed seems to think the good guys won in a battle over the dishonest phrasing of a description of the Creation “Museum” published in a Kentucky visitor’s bureau pamphlet. They’ve backed down and changed the wording…but I’m in agreement with Greg. What did Ken Ham get out of this? A little controversy, a little free advertising, and he still has the state of Kentucky promoting his lies for him. This is a victory?
Just a link to an article in the Times today… From a book by John Humphrys, usually a good journalist. It’s all about those horrible “militant atheists”..
“Yes, we loathe and fear the fanaticism that leads to a man strapping a bomb to his body and blowing up other human beings. But we should also fear a world in which the predominant values are materialism and consumerism, and the greatest aspiration of too many children is to become a “celebrity”. The existence of religion can offer some balance in a society obsessed with image, which turns vacuity into virtue.”
There’s more (and worse):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367028.ece
Blaming atheism for modern social issues (such as children looking up to Paris Hilton or whoever the idol du jour happens to be) is not only a low blow, it’s also fundamentally dishonest. Do these people really think the church can succeed in “straightening out” the consumerist youth of today if their teachers, parents and other authority figures are unable to do so?
They’re looking at church to provide not only a moral compass but an active panacea to these supposed societal ills, which to me is a bit like asking a plumber to fix bad TV reception. Priests aren’t psychologists, they have no more expertise in tackling the less-than-desirable elements of the modern zeitgeist as the man on the street. What can a clergyman bring to the table upon the problem of excessive image-consciousness in modern media and the effect it’s having on the kids today? Sure, a few lines of Biblical rhetoric might sound impressive recited from behind a pulpit, but as I indicated above, the problem is kids not listening to advice to begin with, sensible or not.
If you want to fight consumerism, protest against corporations or ad agencies or what have you. But don’t paint up this image of the church as some impregnable bulwark, protecting us from all that’s evil about Big Business. As many an expert in the field of televangelist charlatans and miracle healers can tell you, their hands aren’t exactly clean on the issue, either.
You’ve got it exactly backward. The problem is people listening to advice from their most important parent: the television.
From the Carnival of the Godless:
Well, that fits perfectly.
Have you seen Conan the Barbarian? Remember that ridiculously huge axe he wields in the showdown battle, fixed to its handle at two places? That’s Occam’s Razor.
And while I am at it, geologist hammers look intriguingly like medieval war hammers.
From the Carnival of the Godless:
Well, that fits perfectly.
Have you seen Conan the Barbarian? Remember that ridiculously huge axe he wields in the showdown battle, fixed to its handle at two places? That’s Occam’s Razor.
And while I am at it, geologist hammers look intriguingly like medieval war hammers.
You know, until atheists in general start trying to sneak tracts on atheism into churches or random public places (without said places’ consent), starting conversations with random strangers just to convert them to atheism, having massive conventions with speakers rallying the crowds to go take the world for atheism, using metaphors and imagery of war, and other such things as are commonplace in Christian evangelism, I think it’s fairly safe to say that any claims of widespread militant atheism and/or “fundie” atheists being as bad as religious fundies are quite full of shit.
Really… writing a few books and being brutally honest about one’s position is supposed to be militant? That’s a pretty fucking low bar for “militancy.” Where are the atheists showing up at sermons to argue with pastors, or atheists teaching ESL as a means to covertly proselytize in foreign lands? Is there a serious threat of atheists trying to make religion illegal? Seriously, when you compare the zeal of the “new atheists” to evangelical Christianity, the “new atheists” are hardly anything special.
I’ve been a fan for a few years now, amazed at PZ’s discourses on biology and bolstered by the comments of the atheistic community. When you compare theology to Calvinball on a Sunday, I can only say (with the utmost respect): Dude, you rock!
Oh, a wise guy, eh? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
He’s not supposed to be the actual historical Occam, just an adventurer who fancied the name and used it for his own. Kind of like Bruce Wayne isn’t really supposed to be the historical Earl of Bat.
Or something.
As the imaginary Occam says, “Why use a razor when you can use your fists?”
I commented at Effect Measure (I’m the first Michael) on a common thread used against “New Atheism”. The idea that we’re even aiming at all for the most dyed in the wool faith heads. If by chance PZ you have a second, maybe you could shed some light on this idea who’s the most likely target, if not for the “New” movement in general, then you personally?
I rather see theology as a pinball game, the old mechanical-electric ones. You know they talk about pinball wizards.
It’s more like Calvinball.
Or perhaps Brockian Ultra-Cricket.
I never knew Richard Dawkins was a fan of Paris Hilton.
That Humphreys article makes depressing reading. He’s not a stupid man, but he certainly puts forward some boneheaded arguments.
Militant, fanatical atheists (discovered our arms dumps then has he?).
Love not a result of brain chemicals, and it by implication that atheists can’t understand spirituality (where does love and all other human emotions and thoughts come from, if not from brain chemicals, John?).
Religion being OK because it’s a comfort blanket (and it’s wrong to point that out to people).
Celebrity worship the result of not enough “God-fearingness” (even though celebrity worship and consumerism surely the result of the same human nature that John uses to give religion a pass).
Essentially, his argument boils down to “religion is the opiate of the masses and atheists are arrogant and militant for suggesting that being clean might be better than being a junkie”.
Hey PZ, I wanted to make sure you saw this nice mention of Minnesota Atheists: http://tinyurl.com/34clv7
ATTENTION fans of crackpot ideas: for those of you who can read Spanish, El PaleoFreak introduces a quite extraordinary guy named Francesc Fígols, who was interviewed in La Vanguardia. I won’t spoil it by trying to summarize it, I’ll just highlight : “reino mineral”…
This is one of my favourite pulp image comments on theology (towards the bottom of the page).
However, changing Uncle Sam’s headgear for items more commonly found on the bonce in other parts of the world might be even more amusing. A Warholesque repetitive montage working in the variations, anyone?
Thought you may have missed Frank Pastore over at Townhall. Apologies if you have already covered this.
http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2007/09/03/the_latest_problems_with_the_%e2%80%9cman_evolved_from_apes%e2%80%9d_thesis