Friday, March 09, 2007

Atheist Update

I have had a fun week over at Arthur Vandelay's (pseudonym a la Seinfeld) Five Public Opinions site. Arthur is a very bright guy and for the most part dealt fairly with my comments. I picked out a couple highlights.

AV: I haven't ruled out anything. This is generally the first assumption most theists make when they encounter an atheist, and it amounts to a basic misunderstanding.
I don't believe in a god because, there being no evidence for the existence of god/s, there is no reason to believe in their existence.

Malott: I'm also amazed at the zeal with which you all reject even the mention of "intelligent design" in the public school. You are every bit as unyielding as any fundamentalist I know.

AV: There is nothing fundamentalist about the demand that science be taught in science classrooms. Intelligent design/Creationism doesn't count: it inverts the scientific method (it presupposes certain conclusions about the universe and then seeks to make the facts fit the presuppositions), it isn't falsifiable (how do you falsify the conclusion that "God did it?"), it violates the very definition of science (science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena; ID/C demands that we abandon this search without explaining why), it is based upon a series of logical fallacies (including the Argument from Ignorance: "There is a gap in our knowledge about x, therefore Goddidit"; or the Argument from Design: "It looks designed, therefore it is designed") and it lacks positive content, being based almost entirely upon attacking evolution and presenting itself--again without proper justification or evidence--as the default alternative explanation.

Malott: Look, you make a very interesting and sophisticated argument, but for evolution to work you need the first cell - and Jr High Biology and common sense should tell you the first cell didn't just compose itself. Chloroplasts, DNA, messenger RNA, RNA template, and other structures didn't just show up one day inside a semi-permeable membrane, spatially arranged in a matter that would allow it to maintain and reproduce itself.

This alone should squeeze at least a mention of intelligent design into the classroom.

AV: We don't know, Malott. But "we don't know" does not by default mean "Goddidit." It means that scientific knowledge is not such that the question is able to be answered yet. That doesn't mean that it can never, will never be answered.

...intelligent design at the end of the day is not an explanation. It's just another way of saying "we don't know." It's just another way of saying "We don't know; therefore, God." Argument from ignorance. God-in-the-gaps. These are logical fallacies, and you can't have science built upon logical fallacies.


Then there is this guy named Bruce that also comments on the site. He comes across as very arrogant - and either communicates poorly or tries to impress with obscure references and tortuous long-winded arguments. (Then again, maybe he is just much smarter than I am.)

Bruce annoyed me, and so I'll list only my responses to a couple subjects:

Malott:
Bruce,
Surely you are a teacher. I recognize the "attitude."I'm sure you get away with being the pedantic bully in the classroom. You love to rough up the egos of children? Probably compensates for a myriad of personal insecurities.
I'm sure you're doing your best, but being flawed - as am I - you might study humility. It will help you accept your short-comings, like yourself, and be a better "encourager" of your wards.

Malott:
Bruce,
You're well-schooled...But I believe that if there was evidence championing gay-longevity... You would have already produced it. The fact that the claim to the contrary has been made - and remains unanswered by a very Liberal world of Academia... suggests to me that Gays do not live as long as the rest of us...And I wonder why you don't want this taught in Public Schools... for the sake of the children?


Malott:
AV,I do appreciate you for entertaining my questions, though "Bruce the Pompous" says you needn't.

Malott:
Bruce,
A pompous person should not be so sensitive.

Malott:
Bruce,
You're allowing your hurt feelings to cloud your judgement.
I wrote to AV above, "for evolution to work, you need the first cell."
If you weren't in such an emotional dither, you'd recognize that this suggests I know the difference between biopoietic theories and evolutionary theories.
Now buck-up young man and get a hold of yourself.

At this point Bruce appealed to his reputation at the site, suggesting that all involved knew he was rational and well-adjusted.

Malott:
Bruce,
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Denial will only postpone recovery.
"Now, Voyager, sail thou forth to seek and find."

Then AV chimed in concerning my Bruce abuse: ...rather than being reduced to sniping from the sidelines, you could address his points.

(Perhaps Arthur makes a good point.)

Anyway, it's been fun. It's a well written and interesting blog, and though I agree with none of it... It is interesting.

12 comments:

Arthur_Vandelay said...

Thank you, Malott.

Anonymous said...

You keep giving those athiest fundies a hard time Malott!!!
I am just thankful that neither of them will have any possibility of being in front of my children's classroom...

Arthur_Vandelay said...

What makes you so sure of that, Iain?

Arthur_Vandelay said...

You keep giving those athiest fundies a hard time Malott!!!

Iain: as I have explained to Malott--and you check this very post if you don't believe me--I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God (there being no evidence for God's existence). In what way does this make me an "atheist fundie?"

Furthermore, in what way is my atheism--in the terms I have just described--any different from yours?

Iain Hall said...

Arthur
I am be pretty sure that neither you nor Everett will be making the move to Queensland anytime soon and I know that I am not moving west or far west so it is no big call to suggest that neither you nor Everett will have the chance to teach my children…
The difference between my Atheism and yours is quite simple Arthur, you are far more insecure in your disbelief than I am, which results in your need to constantly try to convince others that your understanding of the universe is correct. I have no such need and I am more than happy to accept that people can believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden if it makes their life better.
You have basically two topics at your blog Firstly there is your anti religion stream and then there is your gay rights stuff. With a bit of education stuff thrown in as seasoning (especially if you can bring in your previously mentioned favorite themes) now that is legitimate but perhaps you should try for a little more light and shade.
Sadly you have fallen under the pernicious influence of Everett of late. It used to be the case that you were far less pedantic and authoritarian. The way you treated my recent comments at your blog is a very sad indictment of your willingness to engage with a contrary viewpoint and it shows that your sense of humour has been completely subsumed by your relentless desire to pander to the pompous one . Now I know how you must be unwilling to upset him because you seem to hold him in such awe but his feet truly are made of clay and frankly you are better than he is in so many ways ( you have finished your degree for starters)
You may be interested in my latest post http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/who-are-the-hypocrites-by-james-ozark/ because it touches upon your favorite topic Gay rights and Homophobia and you are cordially invited to comment .
Best wishes
Iain

Arthur_Vandelay said...

The difference between my Atheism and yours is quite simple Arthur, you are far more insecure in your disbelief than I am, which results in your need to constantly try to convince others that your understanding of the universe is correct.

There you go with your strawmen again, Iain. Perhaps someday you'll realise that there are more honest ways of conducting debate.

It used to be the case that you were far less pedantic and authoritarian. The way you treated my recent comments at your blog is a very sad indictment of your willingness to engage with a contrary viewpoint and it shows that your sense of humour has been completely subsumed by your relentless desire to pander to the pompous one

You know very well why I took action against you, and it has everything to do with your stubborn failure to abide by the comments policy. You have a comments policy too, don't you, Iain?

Since a cursory glance at my blog will reveal that I don't and have never censored contrary opinions--just ask the as-yet-uncensored Malott--it seems that you are a liar as well as a hypocrite.

As an atheist, I ask that you humbly refrain from further hypocrisy and mendacity, as behaviour of this kind just confirms in theists' minds how evil and nasty we are.

Anonymous said...

There you go with your strawmen again, Iain. Perhaps someday you'll realise that there are more honest ways of conducting debate.

Arthur even the most cursory look at your front page will reveal a whole swag of links to atheist websites, any cursory perusal of your archive will find post after post where you argue for your religious position. If anyone cares to look at my front page you will not find a list of atheist websites and my archive does not contain innumerable posts where I set out to promote atheism over any other kind of religious belief. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from those facts that you are seeking through your blog to promote your own atheism. And it is likewise no great leap to argue that you like most of those who try to promote a religious position that at least part of that promotion is all about convincing one’s self.
So the evidence is there to support my assertion that you are trying to promote your belief system by the constant denigration of the beliefs of others and my suggestion of a reason that you do this is consistent with religious psychology so forget the straw man put down; it just won’t fly on this occasion



You know very well why I took action against you, and it has everything to do with your stubborn failure to abide by the comments policy. You have a comments policy too, don't you, Iain?
What I do know Arthur is that you mutilated a comment of mine that was time stamped BEFORE your ultimatum and that my comments were not abusive nor were they inconsistent with civil discourse but you don’t seem to care about that these days do you? And yes I do have a comments policy Arthur you can read it anytime but I don’t administer my comments to the pleasure of anyone but myself.

Since a cursory glance at my blog will reveal that I don't and have never censored contrary opinions--just ask the as-yet-uncensored Malott--it seems that you are a liar as well as a hypocrite.

You have censored my quite reasonable Contrary comments so clearly you are wrong here and the gratuitous claim that I am a liar and a hypocrite is entirely uncalled for and reflects badly upon you .

As an atheist, I ask that you humbly refrain from further hypocrisy and mendacity, as behaviour of this kind just confirms in theists' minds how evil and nasty we are.

I am an honest man and I sincerely hold my views about the nature of reality and the understanding of the supernatural. The fact that I am willing to accept that other people may perceive the universe differently and that they may take great comfort from a belief in a deity is by no means an act of mendacity. It is a sign of respect for an individual’s right to believe what ever they choose to believe. In my life I have had some of the strongest and most enduring friendships with some very devout theists and with out exception they have been happy to return the respect that I have shown for their faith in the way they have respected my own profound disbelief.
In fact it is Militant Fundamentalist Atheists like yourself who make every matter of faith a confrontation that bring into disrepute the sincere position of the majority of atheists.

Arthur_Vandelay said...

Iain: We all blog about issues that interest or concern us, and atheism as a topic happens to interest me (being an atheist myself).

Being an atheist, and blogging about atheism, does not make me an "atheist fundamentalist."

I am also a fervent supporter of liberal democracy; hence I am concerned by (and therefore are more likely to blog about) the Religious Right and the Authoritarian Right--two forces that threaten the future of liberal democracy in Western societies.

My support for liberal democracy, and my criticism of both the Religious Right and the Authoritarian Right, do not make me an "atheist fundamentalist."

Nor does my support for gay rights--a logical consequence of my liberal democratic values and my desire to equal opportunity for minorities and their protection from the tyranny of the majority (a core principle of liberal democracy)--make me an "atheist fundamentalist." (Nor does it make me "gay," you half-wit!)

What I do know Arthur is that you mutilated a comment of mine that was time stamped BEFORE your ultimatum and that my comments were not abusive nor were they inconsistent with civil discourse but you don’t seem to care about that these days do you?

When did you, a known cyber-stalker, ever care about civil discourse, Iain? For the record I actually first gave you that ultimatum last year when you were using my comments threads to continue a flamewar with a different commenter. Nonetheless, you were given fair warning this time around.

And yes I do have a comments policy Arthur you can read it anytime but I don’t administer my comments to the pleasure of anyone but myself.

(Yawn) Another strawman.

You have censored my quite reasonable Contrary comments so clearly you are wrong here

Iain: you abused the policy one too many times, and after I asked you not to, so what choice did I have? What's the point of having a comments policy if you don't enforce it?

In any case, I no longer accept any vowels from your quarter. You can lie about this all you want, of course, whining that I'm censoring your (ahem) "reasonable" opinions, but we both know otherwise. Incidentally, since reason isn't really your strong suit, I think I'm actually doing you a favour. Your comments actually make more sense as strings of consonants.

The fact that I am willing to accept that other people may perceive the universe differently and that they may take great comfort from a belief in a deity is by no means an act of mendacity.

What is a clear sign of your mendacity is your willingness to engage in strawmen and red-herrings. (It is a clear sign of your pig-headedness that you persist in such conduct, even if your interlocutors can see right though it every time.) I called you a liar, but I never said that this had anything to do with your "acceptance of other people who perceive the universe differently," so why mention it?

In fact it is Militant Fundamentalist Atheists like yourself who make every matter of faith a confrontation that bring into disrepute the sincere position of the majority of atheists.

I can't decide whether this is a collection of strawmen or a bunch of outright lies. Perhaps you simply don't know what the words "militant," "fundamentalist" or even "atheist" mean?

My beef is with fundamentalism, Iain (and in particular its intersection with politics, which I believe is deleterious in a secular liberal democracy). There is an entire spectrum of belief that doesn't fall under this heading, and you are simply lying through your teeth when you allege that I am seeking a "confrontation" with every kind of believer. (I actually include a few Christians on my blogroll--and what kind of self-respecting Militant Fundamentalist Atheist would do that?)

As please enlighten me--in what sense am I "militant?" I can't seem to recall ever burning down any churches or cut off any heads in the name of my atheism, nor have I ever taken to the streets because of it. Nor have I attempted to convert anybody. I am no more "militant" about my atheism than you are about yours.

But let's get back to the question you dodged in your previous comment:

I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God (there being no evidence for God's existence). In what way does this make me an "atheist fundie?"

Do you have an answer for this question, Iain? Or more red-herrings?

Arthur_Vandelay said...

Iain has been known on several occasions to have edited, deleted and generally manipulated posts to give false impressions of his own statements and the related comments of others.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Iain Hall said...

Iain: We all blog about issues that interest or concern us, and atheism as a topic happens to interest me (being an atheist myself).

Being an atheist, and blogging about atheism, does not make me an "atheist fundamentalist."

I am also a fervent supporter of liberal democracy; hence I am concerned by (and therefore are more likely to blog about) the Religious Right and the Authoritarian Right--two forces that threaten the future of liberal democracy in Western societies.

My support for liberal democracy, and my criticism of both the Religious Right and the Authoritarian Right, do not make me an "atheist fundamentalist."

Your concern about fundamentalist Islam is most notable by its absence though,and you are even willing to make any kind of excuse for the pernicious manifestations of that faith like the wearing of the Burqa .You are an atheist fundamentalist because you show no respect for the sincerely held beliefs of Christians and you loudly denounce them,whilst promotiong your own "faith."

Nor does my support for gay rights--a logical consequence of my liberal democratic values and my desire to equal opportunity for minorities and their protection from the tyranny of the majority (a core principle of liberal democracy)--make me an "atheist fundamentalist." (Nor does it make me "gay," you half-wit!)
I long ago accepted ,at face value your denial, that you are a homosexual but you seem incapable of any kind of nuanced thinking on this topic , for you it is the gay activist line or nothing. I support the right of homosexuals not to be discriminated against by the law but that support does not extend as far as allowing them to usurp the institution of marriage and make it something different,and I don't think that it is necessary to promote homosexuality in our schools ,as you do. Frankly that is beyond the remit of any teacher in my opinion.

What I do know Arthur is that you mutilated a comment of mine that was time stamped BEFORE your ultimatum and that my comments were not abusive nor were they inconsistent with civil discourse but you don’t seem to care about that these days do you?(lain)

When did you, a known cyber-stalker, ever care about civil discourse, Iain? For the record I actually first gave you that ultimatum last year when you were using my comments threads to continue a flamewar with a different commenter. Nonetheless, you were given fair warning this time around.

This is the sound of Arthur Vanderlay covering his arse after being shown to have been unfair; The goal posts must have wheels at Arthur's place. You have swallowed hook line and sinker Everett's line that I was "stalking" him when nothing is further from the truth, so instead of being a real man and admitting that you made an error (mutilating my comment made before your ultimatum) you go into this childish justification that I am bad and thus deserve such treatment anyway That is truly pathetic mate.

In any case, I no longer accept any vowels from your quarter. You can lie about this all you want, of course, whining that I'm censoring your (ahem) "reasonable" opinions, but we both know otherwise. Incidentally, since reason isn't really your strong suit, I think I'm actually doing you a favour. Your comments actually make more sense as strings of consonants.
You may well think that this sort of behaviour makes you look so smart and clever but in reality it just makes you look like a wanker, so full of your own self importance and so full of that which should be flushed.


What is a clear sign of your mendacity is your willingness to engage in strawmen and red-herrings. (It is a clear sign of your pig-headedness that you persist in such conduct, even if your interlocutors can see right though it every time.) I called you a liar, but I never said that this had anything to do with your "acceptance of other people who perceive the universe differently," so why mention it?
Besides the fact that your calling me a Liar is an entirely unnecessary personal attack that is not supported by the facts, you try the academic trick of using convoluted rhetoric to make your argument seem far more substantial than it actually is. In the context of your original attempt at a put down I stand by my reading of your comment and my response to it.

In fact it is Militant Fundamentalist Atheists like yourself who make every matter of faith a confrontation that bring into disrepute the sincere position of the majority of atheists.(Iain)

I can't decide whether this is a collection of strawmen or a bunch of outright lies. Perhaps you simply don't know what the words "militant," "fundamentalist" or even "atheist" mean?

Arthur I was a committed atheist long before you even first drew breath and your attempts to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about is just the sort of ad homonym that I have come to expect from you of late. in any case as far as I am aware expressing an opinion is somewhat different from telling lies

My beef is with fundamentalism, Iain (and in particular its intersection with politics, which I believe is deleterious in a secular liberal democracy). There is an entire spectrum of belief that doesn't fall under this heading, and you are simply lying through your teeth when you allege that I am seeking a "confrontation" with every kind of believer. (I actually include a few Christians on my blogroll--and what kind of self-respecting Militant Fundamentalist Atheist would do that?)
You say that your beef is with "fundamentalism" and yet the evidence in your blog is that this is not true. Where are your pieces about Islamic fundamentalism? Hindu Fundamentalism? Feminist fundamentalism? Homosexual fundamentalism? or even AGW fundamentalism? No your beef is actually with Christian Fundamentalism and you find any kind of excuse to confront it at your blog .I even agree with some of your criticisms of it, but I have yet to fined any post that does not treat a belief in any deity without disdain and mockery and it is on this behavior that I make the claim of your "militancy" in relation to your atheism and it is the evidence of the tone and content of your writing on this subject that leads me to put forward the opinion that you seek confrontation in any discussion or debate with theists in the matter of their faith. Note it is my opinion and Not a through the teeth lie (sadly you can't tell the difference )


As please enlighten me--in what sense am I "militant?" I can't seem to recall ever burning down any churches or cut off any heads in the name of my atheism, nor have I ever taken to the streets because of it. Nor have I attempted to convert anybody. I am no more "militant" about my atheism than you are about yours.
See above response

But let's get back to the question you dodged in your previous comment:

I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God (there being no evidence for God's existence). In what way does this make me an "atheist fundie?"

Do you have an answer for this question, Iain? Or more red-herrings?

a religious fundamentalist is by definition someone who is without doubt about their faith position and who spends a great deal of their time and energy promoting their faith by denouncing any person's contrary understandings of the universe.You meet this definition in with out any difficulty


confusedforeigner said...
So, Iain Hall is still around peddling his irrational and dishonest excuses for bigotry.

Oh, goody.

I don't wish to be involved in any way but one tthing needs saying regarding Iain's honesty and his complaints about others' comment policies.

Iain has been known on several occasions to have edited, deleted and generally manipulated posts to give false impressions of his own statements and the related comments of others.

In my view, it is hard to imagine a less honest or principled practise.


Are you still going around the bloggosphere making excuses for Islamic fundamentalists confused one?
Still making excuses for any one who would attack Israel?
still making excuses for anyone who would strap on a bomb belt if their target is civilians in the west?
Go back to the slime where you belong

Arthur_Vandelay said...

You are an atheist fundamentalist because you show no respect for the sincerely held beliefs of Christians and you loudly denounce them,whilst promotiong your own "faith."

Then you clearly don't know what "fundamentalist" means, and I suggest you look it up.

I support the right of homosexuals not to be discriminated against by the law but that support does not extend as far as allowing them to usurp the institution of marriage and make it something different,and I don't think that it is necessary to promote homosexuality in our schools ,as you do. Frankly that is beyond the remit of any teacher in my opinion.

Another strawman. Keep digging, Iain.

You have swallowed hook line and sinker Everett's line that I was "stalking" him when nothing is further from the truth, so instead of being a real man and admitting that you made an error (mutilating my comment made before your ultimatum) you go into this childish justification that I am bad and thus deserve such treatment anyway

Whatever, Iain. I've seen enough evidence of your online misbehaviour--including that produced at Bruce's site--to know that you are a nasty piece of work. You know--the kind who seeks information about his interlocutors, such as their real identities, so he can use it against them. Hence your constant chiding of bloggers who have the temerity to use pseudonyms in your presence, along with your (completely logically fallacious) claim that an argument receives more "gravitas" if the arguer gives his or her real name.

There are perfectly good reasons why bloggers prefer to protect their identities around you--reasons very similar to those usually given by people who are reluctant to give their financial details to Nigerian bank scammers.

Your problem, Iain, is that you assume people aren't paying attention to you.

As for the fact that you make much more sense without vowels:

Y m wll thnk tht ths srt f bhvr mks y lk s smrt nd clvr bt n rlt t jst mks y lk lk wnkr, s fll f yr wn slf mprtnc nd s fll f tht whch shld b flshd.

See? I rest my case. :)

you try the academic trick of using convoluted rhetoric to make your argument seem far more substantial than it actually is

Translation: "WAAAH! WAAAH! I don't understand what he said, therefore it must be bad. WAAAH! WAAAH!"

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating. I'm not responsible for your ignorance.

Arthur I was a committed atheist

A "committed atheist," huh? According to your logic, that makes you a Militant Atheist Fundamentalist.

long before you even first drew breath

Which is significant because . . .?

and your attempts to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about is just the sort of ad homonym that I have come to expect from you of late.

It's not an ad hominem, Iain: it's an observation based upon data you have provided me--namely your misuse of terms of such as "militant," "atheist" and "fundamentalist."

(BTW: "Homonyms" are words that are pronounced the same as one another, but have different meanings.)

in any case as far as I am aware expressing an opinion is somewhat different from telling lies

But if the opinion has been shown to be false, and yet you persist in voicing it, it is only reasonable to conclude that you are being dishonest.

You say that your beef is with "fundamentalism" and yet the evidence in your blog is that this is not true.

Wrong. That you could come to this conclusion from reading my blog indicates to me that not only do you need to brush up on your reasoning skills and your vocabulary, but your basic comprehension skills also. Unfortunately for you, others are able to visit my blog and see for themselves how wrong you are.

Though I am an educator, it isn't my job to correct these shortfalls in your abilities. I will give you a big fat hint, though: being critical of Christian fundamentalism does not make one a "Militant Atheist Fundamentalist."

I even agree with some of your criticisms of it, but I have yet to fined any post that does not treat a belief in any deity without disdain and mockery and it is on this behavior that I make the claim of your "militancy" in relation to your atheism

Then you are simply playing Humpty-Dumpty with the meaning of the word "militancy"; either that, or you simply don't know what the word means. Either way, you're misusing it.

Note it is my opinion and Not a through the teeth lie (sadly you can't tell the difference )

But I can tell the difference between opinions and the facts--an ability you clearly lack yourself, given your apparent belief that if you repeat a thing often enough, it will be true.

a religious fundamentalist is by definition yada yada yada [insert red herring here]

Why won't you answer the question, Iain? It's quite simple. Ahem:

"I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God (there being no evidence for God's existence). In what way does this make me an "atheist fundie?""

Well?

Anonymous said...

Arthur
I was going to demonstrate why that you were wrong in your slanderous assertions about my character (which you most definitely are by the way) but instead of doing that I have decided to concentrate upon your denial that you are a “militant fundamentalist athiest”
My source for definitions is that site so beloved to the left; Wikipedia. All quotes are attributed via the source link at the bottom
Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
(Source)

Now I have no conflict with you on a definition of atheism so we can take that as a given the question is can the other two terms correctly be applied to you?

" people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote Atheism(source)"

In your blog you write very often promoting atheism so I think we can safely say that you are more outspoken than the general population ,yep we can legitimately claim the term “militant” is appropriate when describing Arthur Vanderlay on atheism.
"Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. (Source)"

Yep, you have a literal minded and intolerant philosophy you constantly denounce and deride any one who has a belief in a deity and you claim that science is the only source of objective truth.

Atheist? Yes (by your own admission)


QED Arthur Vanderlay IS a “militant fundamentalist Atheist”