Atheist Nexus Sexus Plexus

Well, I decided to join that bastion of rationality, Atheist Nexus. Maybe because I’m happily married and an old fart to boot, I blithely assumed that AN was going to be a place for a lively exchange of freethinking ideas. Turns out I was wrong. It’s mostly a site for people who want to write comments without bothering to read the previous ones on the same thread. It also gives folks a rare and wonderful opportunity to share their favorite songs, if anyone cares (which they don't). It provides each member with an excellent excuse to pimp his or her blog or podcast, except that hardly anyone clicks on the links because they're all too busy pimping their own blogs or podcasts. In the sidebar, it features informative blurbs, courtesy of Google Ads, about religious Web sites; this doesn’t bother anyone, of course, because we all understand that AN has to make a buck to keep providing us with such a fantastic service.

The bottom line is, though: Atheist Nexus is primarily a fantasy dating site. About half the members are looking to hook up. Perhaps one or two couples actually will.

Anyway, I did an informal poll among the oh-so-rational community at Atheist Nexus to determine what qualities they were looking for in potential skeptical partners. Here’s what I discovered:

Responses by Men/Boys

• Big boobs
• Likes loud rock bands that no one has ever heard of
  
• Avidly reads sci-fi, but only if it's written by guys
  
• Finds geeks attractive
• Eager to listen to pointless rants
• Did I mention big boobs?
• Thinks it’s hilarious to spell “the” as TEH
• Will sleep with anyone who accepts evolution
• Ummm... I included big boobs already, right?
• Not too religious

Responses by Women/Girls

• Loves kittens
• Respects woman for there brians
• Well hung, but not outrageously so
• Is able to shut up once in a while during quiet walks on the beach
  
• Loves children (but not that way)
• Is willing to watch depressing documentaries and/or chick flicks
• Well, a little outrageously would be OK
• Won’t mind that my BBF is a gay male Baptist
  
• Enjoys cuddling before and after sex, and sometimes instead of
• Not too religious

For the record, both my wife and I are not too religious.

Another What?

I really hate it
when bloggers
shill their own stuff,
don't you?

So believe me,
I have no idea
what this is about.

If anyone
among my readers
happens to listen to it,
please let me know
what the hell it is.

I Understand that Aristotle Was a Riot

I’ve been seeing lots of really stupid debates between atheists and religionists lately. But, then, aren’t all debates between atheists and religionists stupid?

That last question is rhetorical: I don’t really expect an answer. Feel free to leave a comment if you have a response, but — and this is addressed particularly to any Christians who happen to stumble over here — do read the rest of this post before spouting any nonsense.

Why are all debates between atheists and religionists stupid?
You’ll have to figure this out for yourself. But here’s some information that might help. There will be a test — the next time you run smack up against a Christian troll. So pay attention.

The three musketeers of argument are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

According to Aristotle, who knew a little something about rhetoric, those are the different kinds of appeals a person can use when debating.

Ethos
... is an appeal based on “character,” or what we’d usually recognize today as “authority.” Aristotle thought it was the most important type of argument. In his day, an appeal to Ethos depended on the character, authority, and reputation of the speaker. Aristotle was qualified to make an argument about philosophy based on Ethos because he was Aristotle; Nicky the drunken cook in the Greek deli wasn't qualified to appeal to Ethos; nobody gave a crap what a drunken cook had to say. On the other hand, Nicky might have had more Ethos than Artistotle in a debate about how best to prepare spanakopita.

Nowadays, an appeal to Ethos can involve a transfer of reputation. For example: I know it’s true because Jesus said it in the Bible or I saw it on an episode of Nova, so I’ll believe it until I have good reason not to.

Obviously, both atheists and religionists make arguments using Ethos. However, they do not (usually) accept one another’s authorities as valid. It makes no difference to atheists how many people in the world believe in the supernatural. It makes no difference to creationists how many scientists accept evolution. Why would atheists care about what Paul wrote to the Ephesians? Why would religionists care about what Daniel Dennett said to Charlie Rose? Reputation is irrelevant.

So basing your arguments on Ethos will make for a stupid debate.

Pathos
... is an appeal to the emotions. It can be a very effective trick for religionists who are trying to sway other religionists, because most of them love hearing whatever makes them feel comfortable, or happy, or wise in the ways of the lord. Pathos is also an extremely effective strategy for atheists to use among themselves, because — admit it! — we love to be pissed off. Man, do we like getting each other up in arms, and we do it very effectively, day after day after day.

If you'd like to see a master at using arguments based on Pathos — although she may get angry at me for giving her this compliment — go check out chappy. (By the way, her partner, deacon, is a damn good practitioner of this technique, as well.) Look at her latest post, although there are others that are similarly constructed. She starts with an example of an abuse by religion, often an anecdote based on something she has experienced firsthand. Then, in a logical sequence, she presents her oh-so-rational points, one by one. I suspect that if you asked her what kind of argument she was using, she'd tell you she was appealing through Logos. But for me, it’s not my intellect that first gets hooked; it’s my gut. Whenever I read about the evils of religion, particularly if there's any focus on the brainwashing of young children, I'm won over by my emotions. If the writer is someone I respect (there's that Ethos cropping up), I'm feeling rage and disgust at religionists long before I get to the syllogisms. Chappy, you had me at "hell."

Another good example of a fantastic appeal by Pathos is this:

Notice, however, that Pathos works best within a group. Atheists stir the emotions of other atheists; religionists stir the emotions of other religionists. The two groups don’t really affect one another much.

So basing your arguments on Pathos will make for a stupid debate.

Logos
... is an appeal using logic. How thick-headed does an atheist have to be to see that Logos is entirely ineffective against deluded people? In honor of Lewis Carroll, a rare rational theist whose birthday is tomorrow, here’s a dialogue from Alice in Wonderland. I’ve changed the names of the speakers, but the rest of the text is verbatim:

"But I don't want to go among mad people," the Lifeguard remarked.

"Oh, you can't help that," said CL. "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."

"How do you know I'm mad?" said PhillyChief.

"You must be," said iggy, "or you wouldn't have come here."



So basing your arguments on Logos will make for a stupid debate.

Stupid debates
Time after time, I see people I respect falling down the rabbit hole. I’ve been known to plummet down there, myself.

But look. We’re not going to sell evolution to everybody, so let’s stop trying. Those of us who accept evolution don’t need to have it explained to us over and over and over. (So please, for fuck’s sake, stop — unless you have something new to add.) And those who dismiss evolution aren’t going to change their minds no matter how many times, or how loudly, science-lovers try to teach them. That’s an ineffective appeal by Ethos. When two people speak different languages, as scientists and fundamentalists do, repetition and shouting are not effective tools for clarification. If a theist asks a question about science, and if one of us is well-read enough to give a cogent answer — then he or she should do so. (Evo did a very nice, succinct job of this here.) But really? Who gives a rat’s ass whether religionists “believe in” evolution. It’s not some magical phenomenon to be believed in; it's a natural process that needs no sanction from the ignorati — just as the Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun no matter how many idiots don't agree with that explanation. Our only “job” as atheists is to make sure that science isn’t squelched by superstition. But those redneck kids up the block who go to Bible school? They don’t need to know about Darwin.

Likewise, atheists shouldn’t spend so much time appealing by Pathos, trying to prove to religionists that some of us can be moral, or ethical, or charitable, or friendly, or .... Why should we have to justify our freedom from faith to anyone? I don’t want to be known as the “oh, he’s a good atheist” guy. That strategy isn’t what the Bill of Rights is about. Even the nasty guys are entitled to their rights. I don’t want to be held up as an example — good or not — of anyone other than myself.

Anger? No one can ever succeed in getting believers angry at religion. Oh, you can get Christians furious at Muslims, and Muslims furious at Jews, and Jews furious at Christians. You can incite Catholics and Protestants against one another, or Sunnis and Shiites, or pro-Israel Reform Jews and anti-Israel Chasidim. But one thing you can never do is get any religionist angry at religion, itself.

Finally, endless appeals by Logos get so tiresome. Pointing out detailed logical fallacies to a person whose entire worldview is generated by a huge illogical premise is an exercise in futility.

I’ve heard atheists whom I consider quite brilliant say something like:

Well, I’m not trying to change the mind of the person with whom I’m debating; I’m trying to influence the quiet people who are just listening in the audience.

But you know what? When you play with the inmates in an asylum, the spectators may not be able to tell that you’re not just as nuts as the rest of the team. As Alice found out, when you try to have a reasonable conversation at a mad tea party, you wind up sounding mad, too.

My recommendation therefore, is to avoid debating with religionists. If you find yourself drawn in, either because you're aiding a friend, or defending yourself, or you just can't resist, why not try using a fourth type of appeal?

Laughos
... is an appeal to the funny bone. Yeah, it’s technically another form of Pathos. But it feels good, and it’s a fantastic defense against all other arguments. Many atheists need to learn to lighten up. Perhaps religionists must take themselves seriously in order to take themselves at all. But we atheists have the intellectual freedom to poke fun. So we should avail ourselves far more often than we do of perhaps the most powerful argumentation weapon at our disposal: humor.

As Mark Twain said: Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.

Another Triumph for the Atheist Logo

Hold onto your hats (which aren't yarmulkes, I hope). You're about to see something that ought to get Gary Bauer's pious panties in a twist. And James Dobson will certainly not want any families focusing on this. I suppose Michael Medved will have something to say about subliminal messages coming out of Hollywood.

We nonbelievers should be proud of ourselves for spreading a meme through the culture so quickly. Our beloved Atheist "A" is showing up all over the place. The fact that it's yellow in the following pic doesn't diminish its impact at all. Notice how cleverly the godless artists have utilized the red motif in the shirt!

If the "A" isn't sufficient to clue you that the chipmunk's a colleague in not-Christ, you can definitely tell he's an atheist by that smug smirk on his face. After all, that expression is another one of our symbols. Just ask any fundie.

You might also be interested to learn that both chipmunk and human atheists share some of the same natural enemies: weasels and snakes.


Next thing you know, he'll be campaigning to remove "In God We Trust" from all acorns and berries. And watch soon for Alvin's new book, The God Nuttiness: How Religion Poisons Rodents.

I Don' Need No Stinkin' Badges

It seems as if every month or so, there's a new atheism symbol. The oldest one I've seen, an "A" inside an atom, looks like an advertising tie-in for a 1940s sci-fi radio serial.

Don't forget kids: If you buy a box of Sugar Jets you can get the exact same decal that Captain Atomic and his Asteroid-Jumpers wear! Ask your mom to iron it onto YOUR shirt today.

The bright red Dawk-A would be great — if we wanted people to think we were selling apples.

The newest creation, from Atheist Alliance International, is equally ridiculous. Lots of vjack's commenters were reminded of a stray badge from a Star Trek uniform. Others saw a branding iron, or an @ sign.

Stranger: At what?
Atheist: At what, what?
Stranger: I like your at pin. I was asking: at what?
Atheist: That's not an at sign.
Stranger: Is it a branding iron? Are you here in town for some kind of cowboy convention?
Atheist: No. It's an A. For atheist.
Stranger: At atheist?
Atheist: No, just plain atheist.
Stranger: You're gonna brand your cattle as atheists?
Atheist: No. It's what I am. I'm an atheist.
Stranger: Well why didn't you just say so. Sheesh. You people are so secretive.

Now, I don't see why we need a symbol. I'm perfectly capable of using my mouth to tell anyone who asks that I'm an atheist. I'll bet most of my readers are, too. I also don't think we need a secret handshake, a code knock, or a group whistle.

And c'mon, be truthful. If you're the kind of shrinking violet that needs to hide behind a symbol, are you going to be that comfortable answering strangers when they ask you what it means?

But none of my opposition to the symbol silliness stopped me from designing one of my own. I like it because no one seeing it will have any doubts: It says ATHEIST, f'cryinoutloud.

Unfortunately, not being particularly gifted in the artsy way, I'm sorry to say that the image in the center of what was supposed to be a circle is not actually in the center of not actually a circle. And for some mysterious reason, my reds don't match. Also, you might notice that my lines are slightly wobbly.

But my nonbelief is as steady as it ever was. Symbol or not.

And Just Think: No More Silly Scarlet A's

All the brouhaha about Sam Harris and his call to stop using the word “atheist” to describe ourselves has generated umpteen posts in the Atheosphere. (Now, umpteen plus one.)

Some, like Spanish Inquisitor, have made an analogy between "atheist" and "gay."

... the word [atheist] has the capacity to become a wonderful umbrella term, much like “gay” is used to describe homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual and even to a certain extent, the transgendered, along with not only a lifestyle and a sexual practice, but a culture. Atheism can include, despite its definitional limitation, a multi-faceted number of differing and complimentary world views and philosophies, if we allow it.

The above is a false analogy. "Atheist" is a common term for a nonbeliever, and always has been. But "gay" was not a common word for "homosexual" until homosexuals started using it to describe themselves. "Gay" used to mean "festive, colorful, merry," as in "don we now our gay apparel." Ever since the 17th century, it has also had a second, underground meaning relating to sexual conduct. Originally, though, "gay" was used to denote promiscuous heterosexuals: a prostitute was a "gay woman;" a brothel was a "gay house;" and a womanizer was a "gay man." Only after World War II, did a slow but concerted effort by the gay community change the standard meaning of that word.

The evolution of the word "gay" gave me an idea. While I'm perfectly happy with "atheist" to describe myself, I'd like to suggest an alternative.

Reasoner.

Here's a future conversation I imagine.

Theist: You can't call yourself a reasoner. Anyone who uses reason is a reasoner. Look it up in the dictionary! I'm a reasoner, too.

Reasoner: Do you believe in any gods?

Theist: Yes, of course.

Reasoner: Then you're not a reasoner. We reasoners don't believe in any gods.

Theist: But you can't just change the meaning of a word that way.

Reasoner: Why not?

Theist: Because that's not what "reasoner" means.

Reasoner: Yes it is. A reasoner is a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

Theist: What about all the other people who use reason? The ones who do believe in god?

Reasoner: Well, they may claim they're using reason, and they may even be using reason. But they aren’t reasoners, by definition. You're not a reasoner if you believe in any gods. That’s what “reasoner” means: a person who doesn't believe in any gods. Any reasoner will tell you that.

Theist: You can’t just take over a word like that.

Reasoner: Yes we can. You don’t have to use it if you don’t want to.

Theist: Well, I won’t. I’m still going to call you “atheists.”

Reasoner: That’s fine. Reasoners don’t mind being called “atheists,” although that word is a little old-fashioned, and viewed by some as pejorative. Still, you’re free to call us anything you like. Just understand that the accepted polite term for a person who doesn't believe in any gods is "reasoner."

Theist: I absolutely refuse to call you “reasoners.”

Reasoner: OK. But you should know that when you read a book by a reasoner, or when you see a reasoner being interviewed on TV, or when you hear a reasoner being quoted, that reasoner is a person ...

Theist: Yeah, yeah. A person who doesn't believe in any gods.

Reasoner: Now you're getting it.

So what do you think, fellow reasoners?

Why I'm an Atheist

Here’s why I’m an atheist: I don’t believe in any gods.

Simple, right? I’ve not seen or heard or read any evidence that gods exist.

Also, I don’t need any god; there’s nothing lacking in my life that could be provided by believing, unreasonably, in a supernatural being.

But a discouraging trend that I’ve noticed in the Atheosphere lately — at least among the blogs that I read regularly — is to complicate the simple truth, which I’ll repeat once again in case you didn’t understand it the first time: an atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in any gods because there's absolutely no evidence of their existence.

If I announced suddenly that I don’t believe in flying elephants who fart Beethoven sonatas, I wouldn’t feel the need to defend my reasonable assertion against every idiot who suggested otherwise. I wouldn’t believe that such elephants existed, even if people showed me a book written over two thousand years ago claiming that a whole tribe of ignorant desert-dwellers had heard one passing overhead. I wouldn’t give credence to any assertion that those elephants and/or their musical effusions are responsible for human morality. I would refuse to accept unquestioningly that those elephants had designed a special place of punishment for people who don’t sing along with their gaseous emanations. And I certainly wouldn’t trust as proof of their existence a cluster of urine stains allegedly depicting winged mammoths with musical notes coming out of their asses.

If I deigned to debate people who had blind faith in those elephants, I would merely be buying into their lunacy.

Obviously, such a debate would serve no purpose. I could never convince believers in Beethoven-farting elephants — airborne or otherwise — of the untenability of their position. Because people who believe in flying, mellifluously flatulent pachyderms either don’t understand reason or just don’t want to hear it. They forsook scientific proof the second they accepted as fact that an Appassionata could come booming down from the clouds as a by-product of Proboscidean digestion. By engaging in debate with those morons, I’d implicitly be buying into their thesis. I’d become a moron, myself.

So, I ask my readers, why do so many of us waste our time debating religionists?

A: It's Not Just for "Apple" Any More

It seems a damn shame that the lovely OUT “A” is being used as a logo only on T-shirts and bumper stickers. I suggest that Richard Dawkins get behind the following merchandise:

• Cheeri-As breakfast cereal: Start your dA the atheist wA.
• A-didas footwear: Great for all sports except jumping to conclusions.
• Starbuck’s A-ppuccino: Stay awake.
• A & As candy: They melt in your mouth, not in your mind.
• Campbell’s A soup: Who needs the rest of the alphabet?
• McDonald’s "Big A” sandwich: Contains no bull.
• Keebler’s A-nimal Crackers: Evolved by elves.
• Est-A Lauder cosmetics for atheists: Keep your eyes wide open.
• The Apod: Listen to reason.
• A-holes doughnuts: Delicious treats for freethinkers & freedunkers.

Can anyone recommend other products?

Rules for True Atheists

K.C. over at Bligbi recently wrote a good entry in which she takes a stand against the concept of a “true” atheist. Basically, she wisely refuses to accept that there's some kind of freethinking orthodoxy we all ought to follow. You might notice that I posted a comment agreeing with her.

Rethinking my position, however, I’ve come up with a list of certain minimal and fundamental actions that I feel should be taken by all "true" atheists:

• Whenever possible, kiss a Hindu actress in public.
• Affix the following warning sticker to every DVD copy of Going My Way and Boys Town: Caution: Inspiring children to trust Catholic priests may result in molestation.
• Sponsor an annual contest to award prizes for best cartoons depicting Mohammed as a talking duck. (First prize: One year of free bodyguard service)
• Issue a statement, allegedly from god, rescinding all supernatural gifts of land to Jews.
• Cross out the phrase “In God We Trust” from all U.S. coins and bills, and replace it with the phrase “This Is Good for Buying Stuff.”
• Start each public school day with a silent affirmation of neo-Darwinian theory.
• Flood televangelist phone lines with the Johnny Mathis/Henry Mancini recording of “When You Wish Upon a Star.” (Other acceptable cheesy versions include those by Dion and the Belmonts, Diana Ross and the Supremes, Linda Ronstadt, Ringo Starr/Harry Nilsson/Herb Alpert, Christina Aguilera, and the Bush White House.)
  
• Boycott all Chinese restaurants that serve fortune cookies, unless each fortune is accompanied by the note: "I'm Confucius, and I approved this message."
  
• Spread the rumor that Shakespeare’s plays were really written by Dr. Seuss when he miraculously traveled back in time to the 16^th and 17^th centuries. Then urge school boards to “teach the controversy.”
• Wait until very late on a Friday night, then go door-to-door to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ residences, and invite them to read the latest copy of Skeptical Inquirer.
• Avoid quoting from the bible in all biblical disputations, insisting instead on citations from Mark Twain’s diaries of Adam and Eve.
• Refuse to vote for any political candidate who mentions “god” or “faith.” (Note: Plan to sit out all elections.)
• After every natural or man-made disaster, attend a house of worship, raise your hand, and ask the officiant: “Could you explain the lord's plan to us again?”
• Go out of your way to wear garments “mingled of linen and woolen” fibers, in defiance of Leviticus 19:19.
• Don't believe in any gods.

Open Letter to Mojoey

You wrote in your most recent post:

Despite the assertions of the New Atheist movement ...

I think you're buying into a myth created by the media anxious to stir an empty pot. I've been an atheist all my life, and have many friends who share my irreligious views. None of us are aware of any "atheist movement," new or otherwise. I'll bet you're not aware of one, either.

Thanks to your blogroll and various other atheist clearing-houses on the Web, we may be described as a loose community of freethinkers. But the main thing we have in common — maybe, in some cases, the only thing — is that we're a-theists, that is, we don't believe in any gods.

If there are any card-carrying atheists pushing a "movement," I haven't been invited to join. Nor would I. Like you, I champion the cause of religious freedom. People should have the liberty to believe whatever trips their trigger, just as long as they don't impose their silly belief-systems on me.

Yes, I get furious when I think about all the theocrats who strive to foist their nonsense — often dangerous — on society. Atheists like me don’t want ourselves or our school-age children being forced to mouth daily mumbo-jumbo to a magical being whose existence we highly doubt; we don’t want the advancement of humanity to be hindered because some primitive sand-laden book conflicts with the findings of science; we don’t want the alleged leader of our country claiming that he or she hears and obeys fascistic directives coming from the sky; and we don’t want to live in a world where other people’s deities encourage followers to appropriate land, blow up buildings, and kill fellow human beings on a whim.

But I also get furious at the thought of anyone trying to control what others think.

The press would have people believe that there's a dangerous movement of atheists who are determined to do that very thing. I'm not convinced, though, that there are any atheists in the so-called free world who would support a governmental ban on religion. If such atheocrats do exist, I'm sure that most members of the loose atheist community would be proud to stand together with you and me against them.