Notes Around
Billvon said:
I once wore a Matrix costume to a brewery costume contest. I went with two women also dressed up as characters out of the Matrix. Let's see how many Tiassas I could have offended:
-one who thought it was sexist (women wore latex and leather; I wore a black coat and sunglasses)
-one who thought it was racist (we were all white)
-one who thought that our silliness was offensive (we were pretty silly about the whole thing)
-one who thought the religious overtones were offensive (I was, after all, dressed as Neo, a Christ figure from a popular movie)
-one who thought we were bigots because most other people came in variations of drinking costumes (lederhosen etc) - so we must have been intolerant of them
What's sad is that the only way I might possibly have been offended is by the proposition that the
Matrix movies are worth cosplay.
And, in truth, I would actually laugh. Not because I'm offended, but because such willful human frailty strikes me as funny. I only get offended by people embarrassing themselves when it's a child or mentally incompetent person being forced to denigrate themselves for everyone else's entertainment. As long as you're competent, consenting adults, embarrass the hell out of yourselves to your hearts' delight.
You can get offended over anything, and many people do in fact make careers out of being offended. In the case of someone wearing a colander on their head due to a religion intended as a joke, there may be a better use of your time.
Oh, hell, I'm happy to let Sieveheads wear what they want. It helps the rest of us identify the unstable characters in the movement.
The idea of wearing a colander on one's head as a joke against religion isn't actually problematic. Rather, it's the state endorsement of that bigotry against religion.
I would probably be a lot lighter on the accusation of atheistic bigotry if, at some point over, say, the last twenty years, atheists would demonstrate some reasonable understanding of what they're complaining about. As I already noted, while I sympathize with my atheistic neighbors over most of the sociopolitical points they argue, they've set the bar very low for themselves.
The reality is that the atheistic skepticism seems arbitrary. Atheists don't apply that sort of scrutiny to other ideas insofar as they have no obligation to. It's kind of like I pointed out to a neighbor in another discussion, who is happy to entertain artificial constructs that he finds useful, but rejects those that get in the way of his sentiments.
I did once identify as an atheist, but it led to nihilism because, unlike my atheistic cohort at the time, I felt it was inconsistent to demand certain scrutiny for one mythical set, e.g., religion, while refusing that scrutiny for other things.
Whenever I see an atheist anthropomorphizing his car or boat, or even taking part in baseball superstitions, the point is made. It isn't about objectivity or equality, but about hating religion and religious people.
It's kind of sad that way.
And for nigh on a decade, I've been trying to get an answer from atheists about what replaces the functional core religion offers people if they abandon their faithy. It's not so much that atheists can't come up with an answer; I have yet to encounter one that can comprehend the question.
The lack of human sympathy about these attitudes is the most distressing aspect.
To borrow and paraphrase an old bit from Bill Maher, I would certainly be an atheist, if only they would first. However, it has become clear through diversely repeated exercise that integrity of principle—i.e., the atheistic objectivity and skepticism—is far too inconvenient.
Note, for instance, how Yazata switches from the larger atheistic movement to individual atheists in order to raise a straw man:
"... you still haven't given us much reason to believe that it's a consequence of disbelief in the existence of God".
People are people. Once upon a time, even my atheistic neighbors recognized that the problems really start when groups of people come together and stop thinking for themselves. Of course, our neighbor also pretends ignorance of atheistic organization, such as Pastafarianism or American Atheists.
But it is in these groups that the problems show through.
The very idea of atheism has much to offer the human endeavor. 'Tis a shame, though, that so many atheists are pissing that value away. As long as it's about actual civil rights issues, I'm in. But when it comes to one-upping religious people by being an asshole, well, one is still an asshole.
You know, kind of like that saying about Corvettes:
Yeah, but it's still a Chevy.
• • •
Gmilam said:
I seriously hope that was tongue in cheek.
And why should it be? I don't limit my consideration of history to a recent number of decades for mere convenience.
We might disdain the confusion, contradiction, and silliness throughout the history of religion, but if we follow the record, we can actually see where that silliness comes from.
Take the Catholics, for instance. We can certainly reject the linchpin belief in the existence of God, but Catholic doctrine and dogma are, in respect of that presupposition of God's existence, nearly airtight.
I would ask you to consider Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell, an historian who has written many excellent volumes on philosophical history. He actually would prefer not be best known for his best scholarship—the five volumes on the evolution of the Devil through history—but, rather, his discourse on the physical attributes of Heaven and his book explaining how Flat Earth isn't something any Christian ever believed, but, rather, a nefarious anti-Christian conspiracy still intact after centuries.
The atheists I've known over the years, in both the virtual and real worlds? Such books would make most of their heads explode.
Elaine Pagels'
The Origin of Satan? Right there you have a woman of faith writing one of the best overviews of the historical-literary evolution of Satan within Christian history ever written.
Karen Armstrong? Perhaps the foremost modern theological historian in the world today? While we might note that nobody ever asked her why a former nun would write a book about the founder of Islam, it's probably more important to point out volumes like
A History of God and
The Battle for God.
If more atheists studied religion sincerely, and actually understood the subject matter of their critiques, they could work wonders.
Instead, we get these movements. Two wrongs don't make a right, except, perhaps, in atheistic math.
That is to say, thanks to American Atheists, an organization—a collection of individuals—atheists in general can no longer complain about the mixing of religion and state. Gosh, I hope it was worth it, but I certainly am not going to thank them for undermining the separation of church and state.
And these Pastafarians? Look, maybe if there was some historical line showing how these different interpretations of the will of the Flying Spaghetti Monster evolved, Nový's quest might make some sort of sense.
But, in the end, it's a bigoted joke, and that would be fine. Except he has managed to compel the state to endorse his bigotry.
• • •
Spidergoat said:
The only possible objection I would have to Pastafarianism is that creating any religion, even a satirical one, is dangerous.
Now, see, there I agree with you.
Why the.. would you say that? If true, it would be seriously uncharacteristic of modern atheism, and certainly not something I would agree with.
Very simply: This practical joke stems from his disdain for religious freedom. He doesn't like religious people being free to wear their headgear. So he's making a point of ridiculing billions of religious people in a manner that verges on, if not traipses right into, hate speech. And, of course, being an American, I support people's general right to hate speech. However, I am very, very dubious about giving it specific government endorsement.