Polluting Australia
The usual – the Australian media are united in their scorn and loathing for atheists – at least for atheists who actually collect in one spot to talk about atheism. I don’t suppose the united Australian media pour scorn on people who collect in one spot to talk about theism – in, you know, churches and mosques and similar – but atheists doing that are an affront to all decent people.
Honestly, I must be clueless; I keep being surprised by the level of unreasonable hostility, distortion and plain rage people allow themselves to express about something that ought to be as ordinary as milk. Clearly it really isn’t permissible, except purely formally, to be overtly and explicitly atheist even in what look like liberal and largely secular countries. Yes it’s legal, no they won’t come and haul you off to prison, but by golly they will throw everything else in the arsenal at you, they will buckle down and do their level best to make everyone think you’re stupid, conceited, aggressive, wrong, evil, and ugly. No, since you ask, they don’t believe in lively public debate; no, as a matter of fact, they don’t believe that the majority should let the minority have room to breathe; yes, actually, they do believe that the majority opinion should be the only opinion. At least when it comes to important stuff like belief in the mysterious God who loves us all to bits but never drops by to say hello.
Actually, from what I have read of the conference (and I was not there), some of the prominent speakers were just plain rude towards religous people. I quote:
“Meanwhile, ABC broadcaster Robyn Williams revealed Dr Dawkins’ opinion of Family First senator Steve Fielding in his address to the convention. ‘I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words — Senator Fielding. Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful,’ Williams said.”
This is not argument or debate: it is just plain abuse. More here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_no_faith_in_their_hatred/
These are the same sorts of comments I have seen from PZ Myers and are the reason I stopped reading his blog long ago.
Abuse is not argument and cheap shots, while they might get a cheer from a partisan audience, are still cheap shots.
http://kamcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-would-consider-earthworms-better.html
If I weren’t so ancient I’d do ethnographic fieldwork amongst the theists and describe the unusual cultlike beliefs of our primitive neighbors, which I have named atheist-o-phobia. They must be sore afraid. . . and like I always wonder about my Jehovah’s Witness relations, if religion is so powerful and Jehovah, Baby Jesu, angels, Jesus, and Mo are so powerful, what in hell are they afeared of?
It just doesn’t make sense. Of course, I am dull at parties, have no sense of humor, and often forget to comb my hair, so maybe I am just too dimwitted to see it?
Apologies! I have no idea why my comment above appears twice. Further on earthworms…from someone who attended:
“Now, onto earthworms. I would like to remind everyone that Richard Dawkins did not proclaim that Steve Fielding has the IQ of an earthworm — at least not on stage at the Global Atheist Convention. It was of course a private utterance he made to Robyn Williams following the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night.”
I thought it likely that this was a private remark made by Dawkins and then repeated publicly by Williams. But Williams is a prominent Australian atheist and the fact that the thinks this is reasonable behaviour is a problem.
Source:
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/03/nazis-earthworms-and-dodgy-journalism/?cp=2
I attended some sessions of the convention and was dismayed. I appreciated ACG’s talk but so much of the convention was annoyingly self-congratulatory and in the end, dull.
Cultishness? That was exactly the impression I got from the response from the audience – claps and ‘Wooooooo!’s at every trite statement. Group-think at its best.
At least I didn’t pay.
As someone who was at the conference, while I can say that Robin Williams’reporting of a private comment was not particularly smart, or even courteous to Dawkins, never mind Fielding, the comment is not even close deserving of the huffing and puffing it has generated. Being called dumber than an earthworm is hardly a shattering bolt to ego, regardless of what prompted it.
And quoting Andrew Bolt, Australia’s highest profile professional concern troll, as an authority on polite and reasoned discourse is absolutely hilarious, right up there with quoting Madeline Bunting or Ann Coulter.
And apologies for the double comment, it seems to be catching. Goodness knows the Australian media seems to be happy to be repeating the same points ad nauseum.
Kate: “And quoting Andrew Bolt…as an authority on polite and reasoned discourse…”
To clarify: my intent in quoting Bolt was only as a report from someone who was there.
Kate: “Being called dumber than an earthworm is hardly a shattering bolt to ego, regardless of what prompted it.”
I am sure Fielding will survive it; he has no doubt heard much worse. But how can anyone think that this is a reasonable response to anything: “I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words — Senator Fielding”?
(Apparently it is not just me who is having comments appear twice.)
The comments from Keith McGuinness are just variations on empty complaints about the “tone” of those nasty New Atheists.
Likewise, snide comments about a “cult”. A lot more to cults than overenthusiastic applause.
McGuinness, i presume, wants to distract attention to the substantive issues raised at the convention (which i attended).
This, generally, is the tactic of the mainstream media.
Don: “The comments from Keith McGuinness are just variations on empty complaints about the ‘tone’ of those nasty New Atheists.”
Pointing out that abuse does not constitute argument is not an “empty complaint”. There is NO way in which Robyn Williams’ remark contributes to useful debate. Likewise, remarking, even in private, that someone has an “IQ lower than an earthworm” is also not an example of civil discourse.
I was merely indicating that *some* criticism of *some* of what was said at the convention does not seem unjustified. Kate and DFG, who were both at the convention, do not seem to dispute this point.
There is a point at which debate crosses the line into outright abuse. Robyn Williams appears to have crossed it. PZ Myers certainly does. People can do this, if they wish. It is still (mostly) a free country.
BTW If you want to raise and discuss substantive issues: go ahead, I’m not stopping you. I did not, however, see any mention of these in your post.
What’s wrong with ridiculing people who believe the world was created 6,000 years ago?
And … does Keith McGuinness really want to assert that private conversations should always meet (rigorous) standards of “civil discourse”? What a dull life we would all lead were that the case.
Carping and nit-picking: the fall-back position in the absence of substantial arguments.
Keith, you’re very clearly concerned about tone. Well, that’s very etiquette-minded of you. But really, really – do you want to make the argument that a societally shunned minority (outspoken atheists) kicking back and poking irreverent (and yes, not nice and in fact quite naughty) fun at a privileged majority constitutes abuse? Really? It’s just exactly the same, and just as deplorable, as religious people legislating their way into school curricula, women’s control over their bodies, gays’s rights to equality? Really?
Oh, it’s not the same, I predict you saying. We shouldn’t sink to their level , because that makes us no better than them . Am I reading you right, Keith?
I have two suggestions for you:
1. Read about the outright and deliberate distortions the media has indulged in regarding this conference. It includes misquotes (and you care about accuracy, right?). Warning: get your knickers ready to twist, because this comes from PZ Myers. We all know he’s abusive and rude.
2. Spend a little time reading Derailing For Dummies. It’s a stellar round-up of all the disingenuous, nasty, asymetrical arguments used against “loudmouth” people to shut them up when they’ve finally had enough of being polite and composed in the face of massive societal pressure to shut up.
You may find some of the tips there helpful, including:
You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry!
and
You’ve Lost Your Temper So I Don’t Have to Listen to You Anymore!
and an all-time favorite:
You’re As Bad As They Are!
Damn it. That’s what happens when you can’t preview a comment with multiple html commands (no criticism to you, OB, of course).
I meant to suggest spending time reading the site “Derailing for Dummies.” You can find it here:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
Very cranky indeed that my formatting got all f*cked up.
Its frustrating to me that these numbnuts in the Australian media can’t report this without cheap shots. Is anything worthwhile being said? We wouldn’t know from the media.
On the other hand, Robyn Williams (ABC science reporter) would say anything – anything PC that is.
Particularly surprising is that some harping on the atheists-are-icky meme are not at all religious. My suspicion on Andrew Bolt is that he is trying to grow his blog readership among US conservatives.
Keith, there were 20-odd presenters talking about a range of topics over three days to 2500 or so people. Some were inspiring, some were heart-breaking; some were deliberately confrontational, some were deliberately conciliatory (and both got equal cheers from the audience). Some speakers were calm and considered, some were smug and annoying. Some had me laughing out loud, some had me rolling my eyes and ducking outside for an early coffee. Some presenters approached atheism from a scientific rationalist myth-busters perspective, some emphasised the importance of a robust and secular political system that would withstand the crazies of all stripes, not just the religious.
To take away from all of that a half-arsed playground level insult and wave that around as an excuse to not consider anything else that was said just beggars belief.
The act of ridiculing an illogical idea is criticized for the simple reason that it is one of the most effective means available to counter these beliefs. The main reason why children in the western world rapidly lose their belief in Santa Claus after they reach the age of six or seven is not through parents sitting them down and calmly explaining there is no Santa but through the child’s peer group doing so – and laughing at those who still cling to the notion.
It’s not uncommon to hear the theists complaint “oh, its so easy for you to point and laugh at my belief in the miracles of Jesus” or the like – with the implicit assumption that doing so is uncouth or wrong. At the same time I notice that theists are not averse to doing exactly the same thing to more minority irrational claims – such as David Icke’s belief that the world is run by shape shifting reptile people.
Personally I think we should apply the golden rule here. I have no objection to theists having the right to claim my lack of a belief in the supernatural is silly but in return I expect them to extend the same right of free speech to me.
I endorse Kate’s remarks, except to add that I was not at the conference. But the modern media’s fixation on an attention-grab for a headline itself is driven by the flood of information around on anything and everything these days and the corresponding lack of time for in-depth reading. What happened at that conference? Dawkins said Steve Fielding had the IQ of an earthworm. Oh yeah. And what’s the latest on Cyclone Ului and Lara Bingle?
The Andrew Bolts of the world (on principle, no link will be supplied by me) operate by sticking as many labels on as many issues as they can: but of only two varieties. It is either ‘cheer for this’ or ‘boo at that.’ Bolt is a Murdochian demoblogue of the worst kind. He would have a lot to answer for come the Last Judgement. If there was anything in it. But there ain’t.
Josh: I said nothing about tone. The word “tone” was used by Don. And Myers is frequently abusive and rude (at least on the internet). He’s certainly a smart guy but if he behaves in person as he does on the internet I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with him.
Kate: “..and wave that around as an excuse to not consider anything else that was said just beggars belief.”
I have not waved anything around. I have not said that this was a reason not to consider anything else that was said. I made one observation, which no-one including you has refuted, that cheap insults were abuse not argument. As you said: “…some were deliberately confrontational…some were smug and annoying.”
Yes, I have snipped out the positive bits but I do not dispute those. I do, however, wonder why intelligent people have to stoop to the level of “half-arsed playground level insult”. (Yes, Josh, you were right on that point.)
Sigmund: “At the same time I notice that theists are not averse to doing exactly the same thing to more minority irrational claims…”
So what? That’s a classic “he called me a name first” defense. You know, you can get angry but not descend to abuse and insult. Ophelia usually does it extremely well; as she did in her post.
Contrary to Sigmund’s (possible) implication, I do not deny the right of, say, Robyn Williams’ to voice those remarks if he wishes. If any of you feel like hurling insults, go right ahead! But if you have the right to do that; I have the right to comment on it.
* In response to this discussion, I’ve now read a fair number of reports and I can’t really see anything in them that suggests that atheists in Australia should be prevented from having conferences and getting together and debating issues.
* Josh, you lost me with “Derailing for Dummies”. Perhaps I’m either too much, or too little, of a dummy. I am also aware of the distortions — hey, I would be disappointed if the Australian media is as good (or bad) at this as the media anywhere in the world — but no-one has claimed that Myers is not rude or abusive; or that Dawkins and Williams did not say what was reported; and that is what I commented upon.
Now if someone wants to raise those substantive issues — instead of defending people’s right to make insults — I would be pleased to talk about them. For instance, what about the statement from the Vatican that of 3,000 reports of child sexual abuse involving priests (since 2001), on 10% were “paedophilia in the true sense of the term”?
That should be “I would be disappointed if the Australian media is NOT as good (or bad) at this as the media anywhere in the world”.
Keith: ‘I made one observation, which no-one including you has refuted, that cheap insults were abuse not argument.’
Right then, if it will make you happy: the cheap insult in this particular case can not possibly be considered as abuse, unless you’re using a definition of abuse so broad as to be meaningless.
As to why intelligent people are sometimes rude and childish, good grief, it’s because they’re people. Can you honestly tell me, hand on heart, as someone who presumably considers himself reasonably intelligent, that you’ve never shot your mouth off and regretted it later? The fact I only manage to do that in front of relatively small group of people at any one time instead of a sold-out conference is merely a matter of luck and circumstance.
And, at the risk of some truly appalling name dropping, I can confirm that having sat next to PZ Myers at the Saturday night dinner, he’s a charming and very courteous man who took a great deal of trouble to make time for everyone who wanted to say hi. (I also got to chat briefly to AC Grayling the same evening, and Peter Singer. It was quite the night, let me tell you. If OB had been there too, I quite likely would have expired on the spot.)
“Sigmund: “At the same time I notice that theists are not averse to doing exactly the same thing to more minority irrational claims…”
So what? That’s a classic “he called me a name first” defense. “
Nonsense.
I did not criticize the act of ridiculing the beliefs of the likes of David Icke – that is the best response to them.
What I criticize is the hypocrisy of ridiculing one irrational set of beliefs while assuming your own are, and indeed must be, beyond questioning.
The whole notion of atheists going around flinging insults at people is really not backed up by reality. The number of individuals who are directly insulted is very small (and usually those who are singled out tend to be particularly deserving (the Sarah Palin, Don McLeroy, Ray Comfort and Ken Hams of the world). For the most part what is ridiculed is the belief itself. That a theist is likely to get personally offended if I say I think belief in the miracles of Jesus is equivalent to the belief that Santa can deliver presents to every child in the world on the night of the 24th of December is unfortunate.
I would much prefer it if they were to say “Wait a second, you are right! What was I thinking all those years!”
But lets face it, that’s not likely to happen. It may, however, lead to a situation where theists no longer unquestioningly assume the religious answer is the normative one for society at large.
I won’t quibble about the difference between abuse and insult. You can put “insult” everywhere I’ve said “abuse”, if you like, it doesn’t change what I think I am saying: “insults do not constitute argument”.
Kate: “Can you honestly tell me, hand on heart, as someone who presumably considers himself reasonably intelligent, that you’ve never shot your mouth off and regretted it later?”
Got angry; impatient; bad tempered; ungracious. Unfortunately and alas, yes. Got up in front of a conference and deliberately insulted people? Not ever. Deliberately insulted people on the internet? (As in “You/they are idiots” style.) Twice, that I can remember (but, then, my memory is not what it might be, so perhaps that’s wrong).
Kate: “The fact I only manage to do that in front of relatively small group of people at any one time instead of a sold-out conference is merely a matter of luck and circumstance.”
There is a difference between saying while chatting at a conference — which is apparently what Dawkins did — and saying something while speaking to a conference, as Williams did. In the latter category comes the reported remark: “I’ll speak really slowly”.
And what you say of PZ Myers is what I have read others say; which makes me wonder why he (apparently) chooses to behave so differently on the internet.
PS I consider this phrase “as someone who presumably considers himself reasonably intelligent” to be irrelevant. Possibly the most intelligent person I have ever met, was also often nasty and obnoxious. Like PZ, they could, however, also be charming and gracious; when they wanted to be.
PSS I’m glad OB was NOT there, if her presence would have had that effect on you.
Thanks for the response.
Sigmund: “The whole notion of atheists going around flinging insults at people is really not backed up by reality.”
Well, it seems that *some* did at the conference. And you could read a little PZ Myers…
“The number of individuals who are directly insulted is very small (and usually those who are singled out tend to be particularly deserving (the Sarah Palin, Don McLeroy, Ray Comfort and Ken Hams of the world).”
Oh, it’s not a lot of people. And they are “particularly deserving”. Well, that’s okay, then. As long as it is only a few, “particularly deserving” people.
Keith McGuinness said:
“Oh, it’s not a lot of people. And they are “particularly deserving”. Well, that’s okay, then. As long as it is only a few, “particularly deserving” people. “
Are you actually arguing that insults or ridicule should NEVER be used? Or on the wider front that we should refrain from the Santa comparison, just in case someone gets upset and takes it personally?
A handful of outspoken theists who try to impose their religion on the rest of us are personally ridiculed by the ‘new atheists’. I don’t see a problem with that. If it was the case of granny Kelly, who goes to mass every Sunday, being called an idiot by Dawkins then I think you would have a point but I fail to see the situation is anything close to this.
When you have a person who is in charge of education standards of a State making a statement that he wants to “stand up to the experts” by imposing sectarian religious views in the teaching of science then I would suggest that calm reasoned argument is about as likely to work as teaching grammar to a dog.
This is Australia we’re talking about, right? The country that made vulgar abuse into a national sport? The reigning empire of sledging? Where ‘bloody’ and ‘bastard’ are practically the mood-music of life? That it should have sunk to to this, reaching for the smelling-salts over a phrase that didn’t even contain any profanity!…
Keith, I was at the conference. There were some jokes made at the expense of theists and conservatives: so? They were funny. Comedians make jokes at other people’s expense all the time, and there’s no real harm in that. What a pallid world this would be if we couldn’t laugh at others . . . perhaps theists need to learn to laugh at themelves.
And you know, what’s more important than atheist jokes, is the fact that Taslima Nasrin (one of the speakers at the convention) can’t go anywhere without bodyguards. Get it? Threatening to kill people (and actually often killing them) for SPEAKING your mind is actually a lot worse than calling people earthworms. Calling the Pope “Pope Nazi” is in a different galaxy to NOT REPORTING AND COVERING UP THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN. Saying you will speak slowly for the theists in the room is not like burning them at the stake or locking them up for “blasphemy.”
Can’t wait for AtheistCon II. Laughing squarely at theists and conservatives is an excellent and edifying way to spend an afternoon. After this squall in a teacup, we will be absolutely spoiled for material.
“Laughing squarely at theists and conservatives is an excellent and edifying way to spend an afternoon.”
Couldn’t agree more. The Atheist Con was the most fun I’ve had in years.
And Keith…seriously, have you ever listened to Senator Fielding? You’d have to agree with Richard Dawkins’ assessment of his IQ. He’s an embarrassment to Australian politics.
But Emily, calling someone “dumber than an earthworm” isn’t a joke. There’s nothing clever or witty or absurd about it. It’s just an insult.
And Josh, I think you’re being unfair to Keith, who certainly didn’t compare the insult to oppression of women or gays! “Abuse” comes in all forms and degrees. There is such a thing as abusive language–language used for no purpose other than to hurt and demean someone. Is abusive language always a “shattering blow to the ego” as Kate put it? No. Is it the worst thing ever? No. So what? It’s better avoided, that’s the point. I think it’s telling that a lot of the criticism of Keith’s objections involves inflating and distorting what he said. Or pointing out that religious people often do worse. Neither is relevant to his point, which is that there are often smug silly self-satisfied insults thrown around by atheists that add nothing good to the discussion.
Honestly, I think Keith is making a fairly obvious and irrefutable point here. If there’s any criticism to be made of Keith, it’s that his point is so obvious it’s banal, not that it’s controversial. Of course atheists aren’t immune to ordinary group dynamics, including the ritual sneering at those outside the tribe. Of course atheists aren’t immune to common rudeness and pettiness. Why would we expect atheists to be?
Jenavir, perhaps it doesn’t seem funny to you in the present context, but there is a history to this joke. Further, sense of humour can be cultural as well as individual, and I don’t think anyone can say “this is funny and this is not funny,” (unless of course someone is really getting hurt). The way it was delivered was not nasty, nor was it rude or petty. Ausralians call it “taking the piss,” and is generally considered harmless good fun.
Seriously this whole thing is just quote mining, and is detracting from what was actually a fantastic weekend, with excellent talks made by very intelligent people. I really enjoy reading your comments, Jenavir, and I like your honesty, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
I saw the ABC Q and A – Adventures in Democracy segment and I do agree that comparing Fielding to an earthworm is unduly harsh on earthworms.
Fielding is a politician who makes decisions that shape peoples lives and he believes in a 6000 year old earth. No amount of hurt feelings or bad manners hold any weight compared to this. It has to be pointed out, over and over, in the most forceful way possible.
And ridicule works very, very well, as you could see on the Q and A segment where he was literally squirming (like an earthworm ?) when directly asked about his beliefs by Richard Dawkins. And he did not have the integrity to own up to it, saying it was a personal matter.
Check out his position on ISP filtering of Internet access, same sex marriage (“A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don’t support this.”), abortion and global warming.
His position on these matters are directly influenced by his wacko creationist beliefs and are not personal as long as he has any influence on government policy.
Just how are we supposed to react to a politician who cannot unequivocally say the Earth is not 6000 years old ?
I suppose we could just consider him ignorant, but how credible is it to suppose a politician standing for the Australian parliament in the 21st Century is so ignorant of the basics of science that he thinks it possible the Earth is 6000 years old ?
He could be unable to understand the basic of science, through cognitive impairment either as the result of mental illness or developmental issues. If this is the case then it would be extremely rude to mock him, but also he should not have been allowed to stand for office. Anyone that impaired needs some adult supervision.
The final option is that he knows how old the Earth is, but cannot admit it as it would alienate the party he represents, and the people who voted for him.
Ignorance about such issues in one seeking public office strikes me as being worthy of ridicule, as does being dishonest about such issues. If the problem is one of cognitive impairment, then the person does not deserve ridicule but also should be allowed to hold the position he does,
There in indeed such language, and Dawkins comparing Steve Fielding to an earthworm does not come close to be such language. Dawkins’ reason for calling Fielding an Earthworm seems to have been to indicate to the audience how stupid he though Fielding was being.
If Fielding strongly objects to being considered stupid then he could always try not being stupid.
Keith, I am a South African. What I know the Senator for is he once compared same-sex marriage to incest.
He is a climate change denialist, thinks making drinks more expensive won’t effect how much people actually drink (Evidently Australian drunks have infinite funds) and supports internet censorship.
Dawkins calling him stupid in private (The various reports failed to mention that this wasn’t Dawkins on the podium) isn’t exactly an unreasonable opinion.
I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea that ridicule is not an appropriate response to the ridiculous. Engaging a kook in reasoned, respectful debate is playing right into their hands, lending an air of credibility they don’t deserve. A factually correct response, sprinkled with ridicule, avoids that while still laying the facts out. Surely Keith McGuinness is at least aware that none of the people he’s mentioned are ridiculing without offering anything substantial as well.
“I said nothing about tone.”
“Myers is frequently abusive and rude”
“I do, however, wonder why intelligent people have to stoop to the level of ‘half-arsed playground level insult'”
“you can get angry but not descend to abuse and insult”
All in the same post. Okay, you didn’t use the word ‘tone’ but you’re still being a tone troll.
Someone said it above, one of the key points here is that the atheists who are ‘crossing the line’ are fine with the same thing being returned right back at them. Golden rule.
@Jenavir
No one said he did, Jenavir – why are you being so literal about it? . My criticism of Keith is that the most important thing he can think to comment on is how awfully rude and “abusive” some of the speakers are to the poor religious folk. Getting that upset (and ignoring the context) about mockery and comedic ridicule strikes me as being concerned about all the wrong things. Especially considering that the real abuse heaped on gays, women, intellectual endeavors, the democractic political process by the religious is an obscenity that deserves all that mocking and more.
I really can’t work up Keith’s level of concern (apparently yours too). Sorry.
Keith, did you read the post I linked to? You quoted Andrew Bolt but he’s one of the people the post pointed out as misreporting – and later as refusing to correct the misreporting. You could at least have found someone more reliable to quote!
Anyway – maybe there was a lot of self-congratulation and groupthink. I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but it certainly seems possible; there’s always plenty of that in the comments on, say, the Dawkins site. But so what? Atheists have been sat on for a long time; so there’s some steam-venting now, so what? There’s a fair bit of self-congratulation and groupthink among theists, too, yet journalists don’t seem to go to churches and mosques to report on it.
Quite. Nor do journalists reflexively seek out atheist or secular organizations for comment whenever a church holds an event or a conference. But boy, they sure do think religious folk have a right to be consulted (and to have their irrelevant opinions printed) any time atheists get together.
Nope, no asymmetry here. No reason for secular folk to be mad. No excuse for lobbing the occasional insult at a powerful majority. Never justified, just as bad. Move along, nothing to see here.
@Keith
How exactly would you describe someone who
a. believes the earth is 6000 years old and would presumably be in favor of misleading children by teaching it (i.e. causes actual harm)
b.is a climate change denialist and would presumably pass legislation preventing something being done to fix problems i.e. is willing to risk harm to the entire planet
c. Is anti gay rights, presumably willing to pass legislation denying them rights i.e. causes harm to a set of people who dont share his sexual preference.
Comparisons with earthworms should be the least of your worries. And earthworms are genuinely useful The same cannot be said of Fielding.
Cheer up Josh, I fixed that bit of html.
Thanks OB! Sorry to have made a mess in the first place:)
On the broader point – what do we have – some atheists say rude things at times; some atheists are self-congratulatory and afflicted with a rudimentary sense of humour. Yes; and? So on earth what? Why is that even interesting enough to mention? What was anyone expecting – that all atheists would be perfect? Who ever said atheism was a recipe for perfection?!
I really don’t see the point of mentioning two rude remarks (reported by tendentious journalists) to the exclusion of everything else.
ABC sent their religious reporters to report on the GAC. Did they send their atheist reporters to the Parliament of World’s Religions in December? Oh, they don’t have atheist reporters, you say, only religious ones.
OB: “What was anyone expecting – that all atheists would be perfect? Who ever said atheism was a recipe for perfection?!”
A not infrequent theme, is that athiests are more intelligent than theists. I would, therefore, hope (but not necessarily expect) that athiests were clever enough to make their point without descending to insult and cheap shots.
OK Keith, I’d really like to know. Whose flag are you flying? Are you a member of a church? I may be wrong (and I’ll admit it if you correct me), but I’m having a hard time understanding your objections without suspecting you’ve got a religious allegiance that’s coloring your perceptions.
OB: “Keith, did you read the post I linked to?”
Yes, I read it. And if you read through the comments you would see that one person in the audience thought that Dawkins was referring to the current pope (in the “Pope Nazi” remark) and it was only on reviewing the video that he realised otherwise. It seems that Dawkins did not make his point as clear as he might. I also don’t see where I actually referred to this incident in any of my posts.
Josh: “OK Keith, I’d really like to know. Whose flag are you flying?”
The only flag I’m flying is my own. Why do you think it matters what my beliefs are? If I say that I was raised methodist-catholic are you going to say: “Ah, that explains it!”
“Are you a member of a church? I may be wrong (and I’ll admit it if you correct me), but I’m having a hard time understanding your objections without suspecting you’ve got a religious allegiance that’s coloring your perceptions.”
I’ve been an atheist for 40 years. My objections are to insults and cheap shots and the defense of them; especially by people who claim to value rationality.
I try to judge people on the basis of what they say and how they behave IN PUBLIC. If belief is, as many atheists maintain, a purely private and personal matter, then it is people’s words and actions in the public domain which are important.
* Of course, it is important to keep things in perspective. The atheist convention is a minor issue in the Australian media: the major story at the moment is covered here:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2849981.htm
OK Keith, I was wrong, and I apologize. Yes, I admit your position would make more sense to me (even if I didn’t agree with it) if it were colored by a religious motivation. I’m sorry, but I really genuinely don’t understand why you’re so deeply concerned about trivial comments. Yes, I do think you’re overreacting, yes it does sound like “tone concern”, and yes, I think you’re making mountains out of molehills and holding people to an impossibly high (and dull), prissy standard.
Deepak: “a. believes the earth is 6000 years old and would presumably be in favor of misleading children by teaching it.”
Please point to any statements made by Senator Fielding proposing such teaching.
“b.is a climate change denialist and would presumably pass legislation preventing something being done to fix problems.”
Actually, all he has done is requested evidence that the proposed cure will do less damage than the potential problem. As the current government has wasted some $3 billion on a program that will do nothing for the environment, this seems reasonable. Oh, and I am a climate change catastrophe denialist.
“c. Is anti gay rights, presumably willing to pass legislation denying them rights.”
Please point to legislation that Senator Fielding has tried to pass to deny gay rights.
Each of your points contains the word “presumably”, which seems to indicate that Senator Fielding has not actually tried to do any of the things you accuse him of.
But this way off topic, and I do not propose to follow it further here.
Take a look at PZ Myers’ latest post (about “nice theologians”), get past the rudeness (that’s just PZ’s style) and address the substantive point.
@keith
I used the word presumably because I am not aware of Australian politics. I only know the three views as expressed by multiple people which you don’t deny (if the senator hasn’t acted on his views, he’s hypocritical or possibly in the minority).
It is not off topic to your comment (its off topic to the post) , I am asking you for the word you will use to describe the Senator and then we can either compare that term with earthworms or discuss your ridiculously low standards of appraising human beings given their potential for intelligence.
http://www.blogotariat.com/node/188758
http://www.uptheanti.org/2010/03/09/dawkins-qand-is-alternative-opinion-ridicule/
See the comment on gay marriage.
Thats proof enough (for me) that Richard Dawkins was being too polite using earthworm comparisons. I would have preferred a P.Z. Myers response for this specimen.
OB: “You quoted Andrew Bolt but he’s one of the people the post pointed out as misreporting – and later as refusing to correct the misreporting.”
Okay, here is what Dawkins actually said about the pope: “Well the real theologians that one could take on are people who believe that Mary McKillup, or who, whatever she’s called, and, er, um, Pope Nazi, whatever he [INAUDIBLE]…have miracles…”
Now youngausskeptics claim that it is:
“Blatantly evident in this clip, Richard Dawkins uses ‘Pope Nazi’ as a shorthand descriptive phrase for ‘that Pope whose name I’ve forgotten’ (Pope Pius XII).”
youngausskeptics come up with an ingenious way of turning this remark into a reference to Pope Pius XII but it is NOT “blatantly evident” that this is who Dawkins meant. Perhaps he did; perhaps he didn’t. (For the video, see Ophelia’s link.) Not being able to read Dawkin’s mind, I don’t know. All I can hear Dawkins say is “Pope Nazi”.
It seems pretty damn obvious to me – Dawkins was talking, in the passage quoted, about the pope who is going through the sainthood process, similarly to Mary McKillop. He may have been nasty about the current pope onn some other occasion or elsewhere in his talk, but here he can only be referring to Pius XII. It actually is blatantly obvious to anyone with the context. There’s nothing “ingenious” about it.
Really, Keith, many of your claims on this thread look like arguments that black is white.
Here’s one of those atheist-hating atheists. He points out some atheists doing something stupid, then goes to the trouble of pointing out that “atheists, freethinkers (ha!), and the like, are no more rational than anybody else.” Well no kidding.
Keith
“I would, therefore, hope (but not necessarily expect) that athiests were clever enough to make their point without descending to insult and cheap shots.”
But judging by what people who were there say, most atheists at the GAC were clever enough for that – so what is your point? That there was some insulting and cheap shot-taking. But so what? Why are you (apparently) insisting that a couple of bad jokes/insults/cheap shots render the whole thing worthless? It’s kind of the homeopathic version of atheism – just one cheap shot is enough to contaminate three days, multiple talks, thousands of people, just like the memory that the last molecule leaves behind after more gallons of water wash it away.
You’re also being remarkably uncritical about the media coverage – as if there were no agenda behind people pouncing on one insult and ignoring everything else.
So, sorry, but so far, I can’t share your shock-horror at two (2) insults.
Keith,
May I suggest The Intersection? It’s an Internet watering hole that may be more to your taste. Naughty words are not allowed there (they’re automatically filtered by the comment moderation program!), and the authors and commenters are very concerned about tone. You’ll find yourself applauded when you make a comment elevating concerns about Inappropriate, Tasteless Remarks over the real damage done by religious ideology.
Another benefit of the Intersection is a universal blindness to context. You can feel free, and comfortable, making grossly inapt comparisons between the inherent dangers of gutter humor as compared to theocratic politics. Best of all, Intersection commenters have a special, patented Blind Eye Filter (TM) that allows you to turn off the part of your brain that would normally recognize the difference between genuinely violent threats, and exasperated rhetorical hyperbole.
Give it a whirl – I think you’ll really like it!
And, of course, have a nice day!
OB: “Why are you (apparently) insisting that a couple of bad jokes/insults/cheap shots render the whole thing worthless?”
I’m not, nor have I at any point said so. (I thought I made that clear in a response to Kate.) This claim of that the “whole thing [is] worthless” is an invention of some posting here.
I have actually said on two or three occasions: post a substantive issue and let’s discuss it.
Instead, there are some 40 odd comments coming up with various excuses for making insults instead of arguments. Dawkins response to the question that provoked the “nazi” comment was also, in my opinion, more insult than argument. See transcript here:
http://kamcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-dawkins-said.html
OB: “I can’t share your shock-horror at two (2) insults.”
My reading of reports is that it was rather more than 2 but I am certainly NOT shocked or horrified.
Oh yes, you certainly are shocked and horrified Keith. You’ve spent this entire thread twisting – nay, shredding – your knickers. Get a grip.
Russell: “It seems pretty damn obvious to me – Dawkins was talking, in the passage quoted, about the pope who is going through the sainthood process, similarly to Mary McKillop.”
Really? Here’s someone who was in the audience: “It was interesting to watch that. I was, as you know in the audience and I thought he meant Ratsy — though quite obviously he meant Pious on a closer listen.” And another: “Yeah I initially though he meant that also. After I was educated however and thought about it rationally I changed my mind.” Oh, and another: “It’s also plain that everybody in the audience, and the person sharing the stage with him, thought he meant Ratzinger as well.”
And: “I was also present at the convention on Sunday, and I have to admit that I too presumed that Dawkins was referring to the current pope with his “Pope … er … Nazi” comment.” This person continues: “I was obviously wrong, and the video proves that comprehensively. Indeed Dawkins’ comment makes more sense, now that it’s apparent he was referring to Pius XII.”
All of which suggest that, while Dawkins may have been referring to Pius XII, it wasn’t obvious or blatant.
“Really, Keith, many of your claims on this thread look like arguments that black is white.”
Which claims would those be, Russell?
Keith…
“there are some 40 odd comments coming up with various excuses for making insults instead of arguments.”
But that is insisting that a couple of bad jokes/insults/cheap shots render the whole thing worthless. Nobody made insults instead of arguments; a few people (reportedly) made trivial insults in addition to arguments. The insults didn’t displace the arguments.
“I have actually said on two or three occasions: post a substantive issue and let’s discuss it.”
Excuse me – I post substantive issues all the time. I also did this post on the asymmetry of the press coverage. I think that asymmetry is indicative and as such somewhat important.
Josh: “You’ve spent this entire thread twisting – nay, shredding – your knickers. Get a grip.”
LOL!
(Just a minute…yep…knickers seem to be just fine! Can’t see any burn marks on my fingers…)
Please quote the emotive language in my posts which supports your remark.
Keith, this is silly. This is the kind of thing the mountain/molehill comparison was invented for. What is your point? Everybody agrees that insults are insults. We all agree that they’re not arguments. You think they’re a terrible thing and most of the commenters don’t agree. You say you’re not claiming that a few insults render the conference worthless, but you’re talking as if you’re claiming exactly that. So – what? It looks like an impasse.
OB: “Excuse me – I post substantive issues all the time. I also did this post on the asymmetry of the press coverage. I think that asymmetry is indicative and as such somewhat important.”
I was referring to substantive issues from the conference.
However, perhaps I don’t see the assymmetry you do because I don’t think it is, perhaps (well, actually probably) as pronounced here as it is in the US. I am surprised when the media does NOT go for obvious, and shallow, controversy, rather than when they do.
Also, I’ve taken a bit of a liking to the Pope since he made a surprise appearance at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade last year:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2009/03march.htm
Sigh. (The above was a cross-post, so not a response to Keith’s last.)
It’s not emotive language so much, it’s the insistence. You must care a lot (way too much) or you wouldn’t go on about it for so long.
I posted ‘a substantive issue’ – not because you told me to, but because I wanted to. By all means ‘let’s discuss it.’
OB: “So – what? It looks like an impasse.”
Yes. But only because some people seem to want to defend, what I would call, gratuitous insults.
Now suppose someone had responded: “Yes, that remark by Williams was below the belt but X brought up this really interesting point…”
You also made this point: “There’s a fair bit of self-congratulation and groupthink among theists, too, yet journalists don’t seem to go to churches and mosques to report on it.”
Absolutely. But I would also say that “groupthink among theists” is actually expected and when there is controversy and division the media DO report it (there was a case here recently). And I am, in *some* ways (perhaps wrongly), more concerned about groupthink among athiests who (seem to be inclined) to claim a more rational basis for their beliefs.
Keith, you’re a concern troll, a tone troll, and a gas bag. You’re insufferably prissy, you have a tin ear for context, you make grossly inapt comparisons, and you cloak it all in a very “high-toned” manner of speaking. People have tried to engage you with substantive issues, but you just sniff and huff. Bye diddums.
OB: “It’s not emotive language so much, it’s the insistence. You must care a lot (way too much) or you wouldn’t go on about it for so long.”
Nope. I’m just not going to be bullied into shutting up. When I started, it was a molehill.
Oh, that’s fucking rich.
Josh: “Keith, you’re a concern troll, a tone troll, and a gas bag. You’re insufferably prissy, you have a tin ear for context, you make grossly inapt comparisons, and you cloak it all in a very ‘high-toned’ manner of speaking. People have tried to engage you with substantive issues, but you just sniff and huff. Bye diddums.”
Thanks for making my point crystal clear.
I’m not hiding anything, Keith, and I’m not trying to cloak my low opinion of you beneath a veneer of politesse. I think your opinions are ridiculous, I think you’re stuffy, and I think you’re an intellectually dishonest conversational partner.
See what I did there? I insulted you, but I didn’t use any naughty words. But you know exactly what I think of you.
Keith, it was a molehill at the start.
However, its an old and finished argument here that playing nice for manners’ sake is suitable behaviour for atheists – the conclusion here is, it isn’t.
It seems to me a waste of time posting on lack of civility (or any non-agreeing theme) here UNLESS you are willing to deliver peer-reviewable quality arguments. Neighbourly presumptions of mutual good will are not an adequate defense if you press people’s hot buttons.
And yes, it was a flaming annoyance to see the pathetic level of journalism reporting the conference – and I AM a member of a church, and support civil disagreeing in general. Not one report emphasised the fact that the conference was needed, that reporting paid too much ‘multicultural’ genuflection to the comments of religious types, that there is settled science on formation of the earth, the age of the earth, evolution and a shitload more. OB is right when she says these ideas ought to be ‘ordinary as milk.’
You and I know hwo secular Australian society is; but damme our thought leaders are intellectual SHEEP.
Heh; thanks, Chris.
Keith, from what I can see, it’s not that you’re not going to be bullied into shutting up, it’s that you’re not going to be argued into being reasonable. You’re just obstinately sticking to your guns and ignoring all objections. It’s all rather self-important.
“But only because some people seem to want to defend, what I would call, gratuitous insults.”
That’s wrong. Everyone has agreed that there were, at least, some jokes or ‘insults’ that were not of deathless literary value. We just don’t agree that that is of any real significance, that’s all! And you haven’t said one word to explain why it is. A big conference; lots of events; lots of people; a few insults or jokes. So what? You haven’t said one word to explain why we should all tear our hair out because of a few insults among the millions of words uttered.
I don’t know how to spell it out any more clearly (clearly enough so that you’ll drop this particular subject – not ‘shut up’ but just realize that in fact you have nothing of value to say on this pseudo-issue) – I don’t expect all atheists to be brilliant wits or beacons of flawless rationality. I don’t expect myself to be that, or anyone else either. Therefore I’m not floored or shocked or disillusioned or astonished to learn that there were some dud jokes and/or insults at an atheist gathering.
I can’t imagine why some individual members of a group which is widely and unjustly reviled might be prone to making the occasional biting, sarcastic remark.
Also, I am a robot from the Moon with no comprehension of human behavior.
Well yes, there is that, too – the throwing it back aspect.
Look, I can imagine experiencing the gathering, or parts of it, the way DFG did. I can imagine being bored or irritated by too-easy laughter and other kinds of groupthink. I can also imagine getting into the mood and enjoying it. I’m capable of both. I think such things can be understood in both ways. Yes, sure, as some people never tire of pointing out, any gathering or alliance of atheists carries the risk of self-congratulation and groupthink and conceit. Duly noted. Be sure to watch for that; try to correct for it; do plenty of self-mockery. But there’s also another side, which is the sense of at last getting out from under the self-congratulation and groupthink and conceit of theism and some theists. There is, in short, the sense of liberation. Sure, this goes to people’s heads; big, big deal.
I wrote: “But only because some people seem to want to defend, what I would call, gratuitous insults.”
OB said: “That’s wrong.”
Sorry, I don’t think it is wrong. People have said:
* Well, everybody does it. (Okay, but so what?)
* It’s actually okay to insult people. (What?)
* Some people deserve to be insulted. (This category includes me.)
OB: “Sure, this goes to people’s heads; big, big deal.”
I am not an “accomodationist” by any stretch of the imagination but I do not see what Dawkins thinks he gains by indulging in cheap shots. I can say this because he has now repeated his, initially private, remark about earthworms and Fielding in public:
“Robyn subsequently made it public in his speech at the conference, which I don’t mind, but I wouldn’t like it to be thought that I had publicly insulted any earthworm.”
He actually appears to have gone out of his way to make this statement. This changes it from being an off-the-cuff remark to a premeditated insult.
But Fielding, of course, is an easy target. On Dawkins and other targets: “When asked when he would be willing to criticise Islam as he did Christianity, the response was pragmatic. ‘I personally believe we shouldn’t go out of our way to do things that will get our heads cut off.’ To the Islamist he would make it clear that this reticence is ‘because I fear you. Don’t think for one moment it’s because I respect you.'”
My respect for Dawkins is dwindling.
OB: “You haven’t said one word to explain why we should all tear our hair out because of a few insults among the millions of words uttered.”
I haven’t said “we should all tear our hair out” and none of my posts on this topic have been expressed in such emotive terms. All the emotive remarks (and insults) have come from people responding to me.
The original post read a lot like OB “tearing her hair out” because the athiest convention here got some bad press.
Well, welcome to the Australian media. I might add “big, big deal”.
Here’s a comment on how the Australian media treats some religious people: “The Australian people will pass their own judgment on muscular, conservative Christianity but it is manifestly offensive to our progressive media.” Tony Abbott, conservative party leader and christian, has been blasted in the media here for decades.
You can add to this the usual treatment of Fielding. And, in my view, a fair number of other conservative politicians. (Strangely, the religious convictions of left-wing politicians seem to be rarely subject to the same treatment. Odd that.)
OB: “But there’s also another side, which is the sense of at last getting out from under the self-congratulation and groupthink and conceit of theism and some theists. There is, in short, the sense of liberation.”
ChrisPer: “You and I know hwo secular Australian society is; but damme our thought leaders are intellectual SHEEP.”
I don’t live in Melbourne but I wouldn’t have gone to the atheist conference if I did for the simple reason that (rightly or wrongly) I would think that I would have heard, or read, it all before. I certainly wouldn’t have gone to “out from under the self-congratulation and groupthink and conceit of theism and some theists”.
There seems to have been more of that on display at the conference than I, for one, normally experience. (Listening to the applause that greeted Dawkins’ “Pope Nazi” comment makes me cringe.)
As for a “sense of liberation”? Please! I think I might well be more likely to feel, say, picked on in this country if I were a conservative christian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/looking-for-the-real-abbott/story-e6frg6zo-1225843015862
‘I haven’t said “we should all tear our hair out” and none of my posts on this topic have been expressed in such emotive terms.’
Fine. You have spent a lot of time and words on this, which implies that you think it’s important. You haven’t said why anyone should think it’s important.
Keith, thanks for posting that article about the Australian media actively undermining and insulting Abbott using religion. It illustrates something about the difference between the US/UK culture of hands-off to religion that irritates OB and others here so much, and how we see ours in Australia. When in the past I spoke against the nasty tone of criticism of religion, I am used to the assumption that religion is mostly irrelevant to public debate in Australia.
Except for Philip Adams casually crapping in the loungeroom, we don’t see bad-mannered contempt. The undertone of disdain for religion is normal for Australian public debate, but usually includes restraint at the personal level.
The selective reporting may be irritating but without the insults, the conference would have had little attention in the media here.
OB: “Fine. You have spent a lot of time and words on this, which implies that you think it’s important.”
A little inaccurate. Most of the posts on this thread were written by other people. Why do all these people, including you, think it so important to pursue me on this issue?
“You haven’t said why anyone should think it’s important.”
Well, I thought my last post did.
Your original post, in my view, lamented what you saw as an unjustified attack on the atheist convention, and atheists, by the Australian media.
First, I pointed out that, perhaps, some of the criticism was justified. I agree that this was, and is, a minor, perhaps banal, point. But you can’t complain about the press saying Williams, Dawkins and others were rude and insulting to theists if, in fact, they were rude and insulting to theists.
For reasons which I still do not understand, some people here seem to think that being rude and insulting is okay, even justified or clever. (We both know, and ChrisPer alluded to this, that this argument has been had here before.)
Second, in the post you are responding to now, I pointed out that conservative christians also tend to be treated harshly by the Australian media. From my perspective (as an atheist), conservative christians are perhaps more likely to feel picked upon than atheists. I listed an article supporting that view.
As a consequence, I think that a fair part of your message, and the outraged “tone” of your post, is inaccurate and inappropriate, given the current climate of opinion in Australia. (ChrisPer’s comments seem to support this interpretation.)
Atheists in Australia would probably say — and I would agree — that some theist opinions are still given too much weight on some issues (abortion and euthenasia come readily to mind) and too much funding. Fair enough.
But your post referred to the Australian media being “united in their scorn and loathing for atheists”.
Nonsense!
The much maligned Barney Zwartz, religion editor for the Age, wrote this (all links below my post):
“And if anyone wants to know, I unequivocally think this convention is a good thing, though in future it is highly probable that I will criticise individual speakers.”
The ABC “Questions of faith” site has a “convention considered” post from an atheist.
And there is an long, and fairly thoughtful, article by Miriam Cosic in the Australian, which reviews just about the entire program: it is called “Celebrating life beyond belief”.
The Visit Victoria website — an official state government site — has this (I’ve abbreviated for space):
“The Global Atheist Convention will be the largest gathering of atheists, rationalists, secularists, humanists, sceptics, freethinkers and other like-minded people in Australian history! The amazing presenter list includes scientists Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers…human rights activist Taslima Nasrin, philosophers Peter Singer and AC Grayling, former evangelical preacher Dan Barker and a women’s panel…plus many others. The Global Atheist Convention will promote rational thought in society and government, in Australia and around the world. We’ll see you in Melbourne!“
You can even read David Nicholls, one of the organisers, getting stuck into the government (quite justifiably) for its funding priorities (bottom link). He still, however, manages to claim: “Victoria doesn’t welcome non-theists”.
None of this seems to me anything like a torrent of “scorn and loathing”. In fact, my quick google also turned up several other positive articles and the majority of the negative press appears to be related largely to the denigration of the intelligence of theists by Williams and Dawkins.
As an Australian atheist, the biggest torrent of “scorn and loathing” I’ve experienced any time recently has been right here on this blog, in this thread.
(Just so you all don’t get the wrong idea: I’m not bent out of shape about this. I’ve been around the internet for a long, long time. And Josh and dzd: Wow! Stunning repartee, guys. I reckon it would go down well at the next atheist convention.)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-religious-write/2500-people-with-nothing-to-talk-about/20100202-naam.html
http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=650
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/celebrating-life-beyond-belief/story-e6frg6z6-1225840634149
http://www.visitvictoria.com/displayobject.cfm/objectid.A7F12D93-3E39-46BA-8F80F1CBE92CD0BC/
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/believers-45m-atheists-nil-20091127-jw77.html
There, have you got all that bold lettering out of your system?
Whether the bulk of the Australian media coverage was nasty is a legitimate question, and you’re right to point out that it may not have been. But why didn’t you start there? Why the fixation on how mean and nasty and rude and unjustifiable and just plain awful those intemperate speakers were? Really, you blew it all out of proportion.
You want “repartee” instead of scorn and loathing? Don’t act so prissy and smug. You had every bit of that coming.
Josh, perhaps it looks like a fixation just because he chooses to stick to his point instead of falling before your all-conquering ripostes. That looks very like he is an atheist who refuses to be shut up by scornful disagreement – and we are agreed that that is a GOOD thing!
Yes, he chooses to stick to a point I find irrelevant, overblown, and poorly thought out. We disagree – big deal. Not trying to shut him up. What’s your point, aside from finding a way to use the phrase “your all-conquering ripostes?”
ChisPer, I would be interested in your view on this statement: “From my perspective (as an atheist), conservative christians are perhaps more likely to feel picked upon than atheists.”
That’s just my view and I am genuinely interested to know what other people who have spent time here think.
Reply off list if you like.
Well Keith, I am not too sure. I don’t personally feel picked on as a Christian, though I was sensitive to it when I became one at age 26 or so. I have far better reasons to feel picked on – as an Australian gun owner I get not just the contempt of the chatterati, but actual legislative sanctions. I try to be a grown-up about that.
I certainly see far more ridicule of christianity in the Australian media than criticism of atheists – by a factor of about a thousand.
However, since these news articles about ‘nasty’ atheism started appearing I am hearing an increasing number of snide remarks about ‘atheists’ from Christians. Previously the word hardly ever got used.
ChrisPer: “I certainly see far more ridicule of christianity in the Australian media…”
This is my impression. There’s a mainstream media issue but not too much in society in general. Most people just seem to do what they do.
“However, since these news articles about ‘nasty’ atheism started appearing I am hearing an increasing number of snide remarks about ‘atheists’ from Christians.”
You aren’t suggesting that the media created a problem where none previously existed? Say it isn’t so! Let’s speculate on what might not have happened, if certain high profile atheists decided to be more civil? No, on second thoughts, let’s not go there again.
But a gun-toting Christian: you do have an image problem!
(I have a friend who shoots pistol: her opinion of the chatterati and the legislation involves words that I do not use in internet posts.)
Keith:”Let’s speculate on what might not have happened, if certain high profile atheists decided to be more civil?”
My impression is that the tenor of the ‘nasty atheists’ meme has shifted the mindset of the individuals that take notice from ‘under daily attack by realism but we can resist’ to ‘we are right – look how nasty the opposition is.”
If it is ‘strategy’ to abandon niceness toward religious ideas this is an obvious effect. I think it may not be a negative for atheism if the idea is to force people to choose sides rather than rub along together.
Of course, if it were ‘atheist strategy’ to drop niceness the media stories OB decries are in SERVICE of atheism’s master plan. The robed atheist Illuminati will nod proudly in their stone chapter halls, a brave ray of sunlight picking out their craggy features and smug expressions… while certain excluded other-gendered atheists gnash their teeth in the outer darkness.
snicker
True, true. There is a sense in which the backlash is a kind of ginger. And yet it gets on my nerves anyway. Am I falling into their trap or are they falling into mine? Or are we falling into each other’s, like so many blundering heffalumps…
Umm, Keith, if you think insults like the ones you’re talking about are not worthy of note, why are you spending so much time noting them? The whole point of the post is that the media focused on the incidents in which speakers and attendees at the conference used hyperbole, satire, humor, whatever (“abuse” is going a little far — words DO mean things) rather than covering the substance of what was being said.
And you respond by doing the exact same thing?
There are, of course, a few atheist polemicists — but then, there are a few religious polemicists as well. In fact, I would say more than a few. Although I don’t have any opinion polls to back me up, I would guess that there are a great many individuals who think atheism is “silly,” “stupid,” “immoral,” “irresponsible,” and probably much worse words besides. And I’m pretty sure that these people occasionally get to write op-eds for major newspapers. In fact, probably more so than atheist polemicists.
Want to crank out some opprobrium for those folks? You know, to make your criticism “symmetric”?
Dan L,
Why? Hes just trying to float an idea or two in like-minded company. It turns out to be pretty demanding as water-cooler debating leagues sometimes are.
I think the media ‘nasty atheists’ story is irritating mostly because its so effing LAZY of them. I someone smart and learned expresses a touch of impatience with a moronic idea, you would think the interviewer could use a bit of intellectual effort and explore the reasons a bit. If they put in a sentence like ‘After forty even years patiently explaining the reasons for the difference between a Monkey and the Bishop of Durham’s grandfather, he realised it was futile’, it might raise a thin-lipped smile from the reader, but tell a bigger story.
Dan L. Want to read my post, above, of 2010-03-19 – 21:54:26, where I point out that the media did not actually seem to do what OB claimed it did? If the media did not do what she claimed, then every defence of her claim is irrelevant; including yours.
Now you could also read several posts above where I point out that the Australian media will have a go at whatever it wants to? Often, especially if it is conservative and Christian?
Here in Australia, only about 2/3 of the population actually self identify as Christian and only about 25% of those regularly attend church (these figures are widely available). I don’t have opinion polls either, but I doubt that even half of the Christians bother to routinely criticise atheists using the terms you do.
OB’s original post did not appear to be based on a survey of Australian media responses to the convention. It appeared to be based on one post by someone at youngatheists who was annoyed that Dawkins and a few other speakers at the convention got criticised. (That post also made a claim that was demonstrably wrong.) I regard that post as an unreliable representation of what the media did.
Please note also that there is no “opprobrium” in my messages: all the insults have come from the other side of this argument.
Finally, note that I am not spending time “noting the insults”. I am spending time responding to numerous attempts claiming that I have said things that I have not said, or have not said things that I have said.
Here’s a question to all: How many Australian residents have actually agreed that “polemics” are frequently directed at atheists in this country? NONE, that I can see.
God, Keith – could you be any more self-important?
Look, if it helps any, I think you misunderstood the first sentence of my post, which would not be surprising, since I wrote it badly. By ‘The usual’ I didn’t mean the usual for the Australian media, I meant the usual for the media in general – it’s a typical(lazy) media trope to focus on one feeble joke and ignore everything else. I wasn’t saying that the Australian media typically pick on atheists; I have no opinion on that, because I don’t know.
Ok? Better now?
But really – you have gone on and on and on about something not all that significant.
Why is it self important to point out that people are attributing to you things that you did not say and ignoring things, which appear to be pertinent to the issue, which you did say?
Why does much of this thread consist of people, including OB, resorting to ad hominems and insults?
Gee: and then there is this, very backhanded, admission: OB thinks I “misunderstood the first sentence of [her] post”? Why was that? She “wrote it badly”.
“I didn’t mean the usual for the Australian media, I meant the usual for the media in general”. But the Australian media are part of the “media in general”. And the convention was in Australia and the only reporting discussed was in the Australian media. And the context was the “unreasonable hostility, distortion and plain rage people allow themselves to express”; little of which was evident in the response of the media here. And OB claims “no opinion” on the Australian situation but referred to “even in what look like liberal and largely secular countries”, which reads like a specific reference to Australia.
I regard the entire post as an instance of invented outrage. As I pointed out, the media, as a whole, did not focus on one “feeble joke” and “ignore everything else”. As far as I can see, this is pure invention. (Did I miss something and it suddenly became okay to just make stuff up?)
Apparently it is okay for OB to declaim from the pulpit of B&W but any attempt to correct persistent misrepresentation is “self-important”.
Finally, if this issue is so trivial, and so unimportant and so not worthy of consideration, why the hell have so many of you spent so much time responding? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
It’s self-important because you’re wrong about at least some of it, you’re not reading accurately, you’re getting other people’s claims wrong, and you’re going on and on and on and on about it.
Please don’t use html, you got one wrong yesterday and I had to fix it (or the whole thread would have stayed in italics).
I didn’t say that the media as a whole focused on one joke. But part of the media did. There’s a pattern of media doing that. So I disagree about the invented quality of the outrage. That is a very common pattern in the media, and I think it’s illegitimate. B&W is packed to the rafters with examples – it’s not ‘pure invention’ and I’m not ‘just making stuff up.’ Saying I am isn’t going to persuade me much.
I’ve just skimmed the whole thread again. ‘Self-important’ is if anything too polite.
No more, Keith. Consider this thread closed.