Thursday, October 21, 2010

Coyne versus PZ Myers!

So, Coyne and PZ Myers are squaring off against each other. Atheist fight! I'm sorry - Gnu fight.

In the left corner we have Jerry Coyne, the Shemp of the New Atheists. He would believe in God if a 900 foot tall Jesus appeared to him, or if a man claiming to be Jesus descended from the sky, turned a prominent atheist's arms into tentacles, mocked him, turned the arms back into arms, then disappeared again. If the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man appeared in Manhattan and started to scale 55 Central Park West, I assume Jerry Coyne would worship it. But it hasn't yet, so he's an atheist.

In the right corner we have PZ Myers. PZ Myers believes that there is no possible evidence or argument for the existence of God or gods, and if he personally witnessed any kind of miracle or if the Virgin Mary appeared to him personally, he would conclude it was just a "natural" thing that science hadn't figured out yet, or that he had brain damage. Myers claims that nothing, nada, no event or argument is possible to make a rational person conclude 'the divine' exists.

Watch in amazement as the barons of internet atheism exchange blows! See Coyne meekly suggest Myers is not approaching the question rationally, and whimper at the embarrassment of having his position on atheism derided as irrational! See Myers imply Coyne is an accomodationist as he jousts for supremacy to the cheers of his followers! See the accomodationists warn that acting like Myers is a sure way to make everyone think atheism is for misfits and idiots! See the anti-accomodationists engage in flights of fantasy about the coming atheistic age! Watch their comments-section flock alternately cower in confusion as the leaders of the Gnu herd squabble amongst themselves! See some of them pick sides and declare the others' beliefs anathema!

But mostly, see how hilariously petty, egotistical, and just plain Goddamn dumb these guys are. And by "see" I mean just ignore it, because you have better things to do with your time.

Now and then, I see atheists talk about how they have to fight back against theism, and get in people's faces and... you know, basically be an asshole on the internet. Well, I have advice for theists - maybe it's time to fight back against atheism. And by that I mean, stop treating it as worthy of consideration among the rational and well-read. Stop seeking out debates with these attention whores. It won't happen though. Too many egos in play on all sides.

7 comments:

Ilíon said...

In general, 'atheists' refuse to be wooed by God -- they demand that he rape them. And, since he doesn't rape anyone, they hold themselves intellectually (and morally) justified in rejecting his very existence.

So, your metaphor (a herd of gnus watching two bulls battle it out for the honor of [bad-word]ing them all) seems doubly amusing to me.

Ilíon said...

too bad there is not an edit function ...

"a herd of gnus *nervously* watching as two raging bulls battle it out for the honor of [bad-word]ing them all."

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

"Well, I have advice for theists - maybe it's time to fight back against atheism. And by that I mean, stop treating it as worthy of consideration among the rational and well-read. Stop seeking out debates with these attention whores."

Well said.

Drew said...

//And by "see" I mean just ignore it, because you have better things to do with your time.//

lol

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Yes, Crude's humor rox the mic.

Peter said...

You have a great blog. Thanks for the time and effort. I'd like to make a comment about this exerpt:

"Well, I have advice for theists - maybe it's time to fight back against atheism. And by that I mean, stop treating it as worthy of consideration among the rational and well-read. Stop seeking out debates with these attention whores."

Surely that's what the Catholic Church is doing? They don't get into fights with these guys. Then again not arguing with them or at least posting counter arguments somewhere allows the kool aid to recruit more members and shake the faith of the weak or those who just don't have the time to research counter arguments properly.

We have a saying in Poland, "It is better to lose something with an intelligent companion, than to find something with an idiot." Arguing with a fool is useless.

It's the same as the persistent internet atheist fundi myth - "You Christians can only think one thing, it's what your Bible/Church/Pope/Pastor/etc tells you. You have to accept it."
This is patently false and implies that those who chose to reject immoral acts (group orgies with underage prostitutes for example) are intellectually worse off than new age atheist fundis who dwell in mama's basement and have access to tons of lolita porn. The other notion is that a religious person who respects God et al, is somehow not allowed to read, research and consider others' worldviews without becoming followers of that worldview (and so being against Church teaching), for example Stalin's biographers must really be closet dictator murderers themselves.

Crude said...

Thanks for the compliment, Peter.

I think you're right about not getting into fights - and also there's the importance of countering the arguments. I actually don't object to that.

My problem is that it seems as if a lot of internet apologists/christians dedicate themselves almost exclusively to new atheists (No doubt in part because NAs tend to run at the mouth online, and will infest any comments section en masse if they feel threatened), or are constantly seeking out debates with atheists, etc. I find that fairly banal, especially when a number of the atheists they choose to debate with have a history of being obnoxious halfwits.

Another part of the problem is this tendency towards Christian overhumility, where I see the Christian open up any high profile debate with 'Atheists are great and moral, in fact the most moral people I know are atheists, and Christianity has an iffy track record and..' Just dismal stuff.

So yes, I agree with you about the inane aspects of the internet atheists, and still the need to counter the arguments. I suppose I should say, the arguments need to be addressed. The individuals usually need to be ignored.