PZ Myers: Why are you an atheist?

Teuton · #1 by **Teuton** » Feb 02, 2011 9:51 am

PZ Myers has something to say:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... theist.php

MattHunX · #2 by **MattHunX** » Feb 02, 2011 10:28 am

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... theist.php

Once again, I have proven my ability to drive people into a frothing rage against me. Only this time it isn't a mob of religious fanatics and anti-choicers who have called me pond scum who will go to hell, an insect souled vile man, a black-souled amoral monster, pure evil, morally depraved, with a depraved mind, descend[ing] down the various stages into madness, and so forth…but I have this time managed to antagonize a bunch of atheists. Feel my pain.

[...]

The godless raged at me on youtube and twitter, thanks to the recent broadcast of my talk in Montreal. I have a tangent in that talk where I deplore Dictionary Atheists, going so far as to say I hate those guys, because they're so superficial. Apparently some people identify with shallow atheism, because they took it personally and got rather upset.

I had to think about this. Should I back down and apologize, and maybe revise my opinion of this subset of the atheist community? Have I gone too far?

Nah. Obviously what this calls for is an escalation. I think I need to summarize all the things about atheism that bug me, and that I wish people would stop doing. There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now. So let's get to it and piss everyone off! It'll be fun! Here's a list.

[CONTINUES]

jaygray · #3 by **jaygray** » Feb 02, 2011 10:56 am

It would be interesting to find out which category PZ would put an atheist who when asked 'Why are you an atheist?'; answers 'mind your own business!' :tongue:

Paul G · #4 by **Paul G** » Feb 02, 2011 10:58 am

He sounds like a common internet troll.

trubble76 · #5 by **trubble76** » Feb 02, 2011 11:36 am

PZ Myers wrote:My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

What the fuck is he on about? I didn't become an atheist because of an absence of values, or beliefs or anything at all. I was always an atheist. I do not, nor ever seriously have, accept this stupid idea of gods. I didn't have to go through some process of analysis and disection in order to not believe, just as I did not have to go through a similar process to disbelieve in an invisible dragon living in my garage.
I'm sorry he thinks that makes me an asshole. (when there are many better reasons why I'm an asshole)

MattHunX · #6 by **MattHunX** » Feb 02, 2011 11:41 am

trubble76 wrote:
PZ Myers wrote:My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

What the fuck is he on about? I didn't become an atheist because of an absence of values, or beliefs or anything at all. I was always an atheist. I do not, nor ever seriously have, accept this stupid idea of gods. I didn't have to go through some process of analysis and disection in order to not believe, just as I did not have to go through a similar process to disbelieve in an invisible dragon living in my garage.
I'm sorry he thinks that makes me an asshole. (when there are many better reasons why I'm an asshole)

That sort of makes me an asshole, too, and even bigger one.

Hands up if you feel fortunate to be an asshole! 8-)

Clive Durdle · #7 by **Clive Durdle** » Feb 02, 2011 11:46 am

If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.

I feel an urge to found the Christian Mission to the Fungi. Imagine the revival meetings - lawd, them mushrooms are gonna go to hell unless they repent of their atheism.

Send your cheques to...

Clive Durdle · #8 by **Clive Durdle** » Feb 02, 2011 11:50 am

He is quite correct about dictionary atheism. It is meaningless. Atheism does change the world completely. Live with it. Act on it. It is false to pretend atheism is a platonic idea in the sky with no effects. Why do you think people react so strongly? They are quite aware we are taking away their imaginary friends like what an imaginary friend we have in Jesus.

We are proposing an utterly different world.

zulumoose · #9 by **zulumoose** » Feb 02, 2011 11:56 am

trubble76 wrote:
PZ Myers wrote:My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

What the fuck is he on about? I didn't become an atheist because of an absence of values, or beliefs or anything at all. I was always an atheist. I do not, nor ever seriously have, accept this stupid idea of gods. I didn't have to go through some process of analysis and disection in order to not believe, just as I did not have to go through a similar process to disbelieve in an invisible dragon living in my garage.
I'm sorry he thinks that makes me an asshole. (when there are many better reasons why I'm an asshole)

While PZ's rant does indeed seem a bit dumb and arrogant, like saying that people who JUST don't believe in any gods are not good enough to call themselves his kind of atheist, you are still misunderstanding him.

jaygray · **#10** by **jaygray** » Feb 02, 2011 12:00 pm

Well PZ must be using a different dictionary to me then. Nowhere does it say in mine that an absence of belief in any deity has any relationship whatsoever to platonic ideas with no effects.

Is this another case of custom definition of a word to suit an argument? There seems to be a lot of that about at the moment...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... -1320.html

:naughty2:

The_Metatron · **#11** by **The_Metatron** » Feb 02, 2011 12:04 pm

I posted this on his blog:

The_Metatron wrote:Hello from Belgium, PZ.

I particularly liked the idea that babies aren't born atheists, in the same manner that rocks aren't atheists. I have to say, indeed I agree, a baby is born believing nothing of the kind, its little mind as yet incapable of building a belief system one way or the other. This perspective makes me re-evaluate the utility of that little snippet, and I have to find it wanting now.

As for me, I finally, finally, came to the realization that the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) indoctrination, did not withstand the scrutiny of rationalism. Morally, eithically, historically, scientifically, it just doesn't hold water. It became a belief system unworthy of maintaining, not only because it is simply incorrect, but preferred no benefit to maintain.

This is where I get to my boys. They get to see the bankruptcy of religious belief systems from the beginning, instead of first being indoctrinated into one. We read about such things. The Greek Pantheon, the Norse mythos (which we agree is a way cooler story that any of the others), the Abrahamic god, etc. I enjoy seeing the judgment my sons make about the plain silliness of such belief and disdmiss it accordingly.

But I do think, as a working definition, that atheism <b>is</b> merely a lack of belief in a god, and there are indeed many other "isms" that describe how we interact with the world around us. Rational, secular, humanist, skeptick, etc. These are all useful terms to flesh out how we identify ourselves. "Atheist" merely describes one aspect of my existence.

I think his post adds depth of meaning to the label "atheist".

trubble76 · **#12** by **trubble76** » Feb 02, 2011 12:30 pm

zulumoose wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
PZ Myers wrote:My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

What the fuck is he on about? I didn't become an atheist because of an absence of values, or beliefs or anything at all. I was always an atheist. I do not, nor ever seriously have, accept this stupid idea of gods. I didn't have to go through some process of analysis and disection in order to not believe, just as I did not have to go through a similar process to disbelieve in an invisible dragon living in my garage.
I'm sorry he thinks that makes me an asshole. (when there are many better reasons why I'm an asshole)

While PZ's rant does indeed seem a bit dumb and arrogant, like saying that people who JUST don't believe in any gods are not good enough to call themselves his kind of atheist, you are still misunderstanding him.

Yes, I garbled it somewhat. I was trying to explain that while people don't become atheists becasue of what the dictionary says, the dictionary defines what the word actually means and what the position actually entails. We know that strict definitions are important, how many times have we heard "It's just a theory"?
Many theists try to paint atheism as simply an alternate belief system, and some forms may well be, but it is shown to be clearly untrue of the whole when the word "atheism" is properly defined.
What PZ Myers is basically saying is the definition of words isn't important, that he arrived at his position through science, reason and all things higher than mere definition. While he is right, how are we supposed to be rational and scientific if we don't define our terms precisely and defend those definitions from unnecessary alteration?

If he wishes to argue why he disbelieves in gods, good luck to him, I may well be using the same arguments myself, but to criticise those that don't wish to argue that position for sticking to the correct definition of the word is pretty daft to me.

Edit four pour speling

jaygray · **#13** by **jaygray** » Feb 02, 2011 1:11 pm

trubble76 wrote:

..snip...

If he wishes to argue why he disbelieves in gods, good luck to him, I may well be using the same arguments myself, but to criticise those that don't wish to argue that position for sticking to the correct definition of the word is pretty daft to me.

Yes, this is the crux of the matter. PZ is conflating (in his own inimitable style) the definition of the word 'atheist' with the holding of certain common values. Finding out about our shared / unshared values is very interesting (where would this forum be without it?), but to me that is quite a different subject to why anyone is an atheist. Maybe the two are linked, maybe not. For PZ to slap the two subjects together and expect his argument to fly without a creak or two is a bit optimistic IMHO.

I admire PZ and I read Pharyngula a great deal; but I think he has overcooked this one.

z8000783 · **#14** by **z8000783** » Feb 02, 2011 1:39 pm

I never did like him much, always seemed like a smarmy sod to me.

John

tytalus · **#15** by **tytalus** » Feb 02, 2011 4:35 pm

z8000783 wrote:I never did like him much, always seemed like a smarmy sod to me.

John

Isn't he a member of this forum? heh.

Seriously, I posted there too, and many people have written in defense of 'dictionary atheism'. Myself included. At the risk of being too charitable (didn't get an answer from him but I don't expect to), I think his point was not so much bashing 'dictionary atheism' but seeing little value in the argument. Who do we argue about it with, after all? Just some random believers trying to score a debate point by equating religion with atheism. And to the extent that they are wrong, I defend the whole 'lack of belief' thing.

But much more interesting is the 'why' question, to speak about what our lives are like, to show that there's more to it than that stupid semantic debate. That argument over labels is always about believers trying to tell me what I think, rather than just ask me. And they may not be interested in what I think. But the rest of organized religion's adherents may be. If we don't like the way things are, well, I don't think we can make change with dictionary wars with nitpicky believers. They'd much rather argue semantics than about the intellectual and moral failings of their religions.

z8000783 · **#16** by **z8000783** » Feb 02, 2011 4:48 pm

tytalus wrote:
z8000783 wrote:I never did like him much, always seemed like a smarmy sod to me.

John

Isn't he a member of this forum? heh.

Ooops, yes he popped on for 4 posts to talk about Josh last year.

Looks like it's :crucified:

for me and after so long with a clean sheet. OK ready to be taken down when the mods are ready.

John

tytalus · **#17** by **tytalus** » Feb 02, 2011 5:06 pm

Spearthrower · **#18** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 02, 2011 5:13 pm

I disagree with Myers on each and every point! :cheers:

Spearthrower · **#19** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 02, 2011 5:16 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:He is quite correct about dictionary atheism. It is meaningless. Atheism does change the world completely. Live with it. Act on it. It is false to pretend atheism is a platonic idea in the sky with no effects. Why do you think people react so strongly? They are quite aware we are taking away their imaginary friends like what an imaginary friend we have in Jesus.

We are proposing an utterly different world.

Speak for yourself! :cheers:

My position with respect to divine beings has precisely zero bearing on my life. I don't need to have a feeling about my position with regards to gods in order to know what is the moral course of action, how to live my life, what I think of X.

You might - fair enough, but let's not demand that we all conform to some abstract notion. I especially refuse to simply roll over and conform because someone else tells me to.

Thommo · **#20** by **Thommo** » Feb 02, 2011 5:23 pm

Fair enough, he can call me an agnostic then.

My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

Yeah, you don't have to be part of "the movement" to be an atheist though, do you?

As someone who has never believed in god, it hardly seems appropriate to talk about when I "became an atheist", and if there was a moment, it was almost certainly when I joined RDF and someone (Hackenslash I think) quite literally quoted a dictionary at me. Prior to that I don't think I ever described myself as an atheist or agnostic, I just never believed in gods.