Religion Awards Coup

Db04 Comments

In the last few days I’ve been trying to raise awareness in the Atheosphere, to the fact that the Bloggers Choice Awards are in progress and more specifically, that we do not have any Atheist or irreligious presence. Indeed, last year, all the top positions of the “Best Religion Blog” category where taken over by Christians and this year seems to be turning out very much the same.

Thus I took it upon myself to attempt and remedy that.

Initially I nominated some of my favorite Atheism blogs but even though I tried to notify the people running them in order to place some banner or inform their readers, I was largely ignored. I even tried emailing Pharyngula, who apparently loves crashing polls, to let his readers know. But there was no response…

Nevertheless, I then had a better idea: This year, not only should we attempt to get an Atheist Blog to the top of the Best Religion Blog category, but we should do it in the most extravagant way possible. To this end, I nominated The Antichristian Phenomenon as I don’t think there’s a better way to be more “in your face” than this 😉

The ACP is, of course, not the only blog I’ve nominated and ever since I’ve started writing about this, many others have joined me and nominated their own choices. This does not hurt as at all since you are allowed to vote as many times as you wish.

Below you will find a list of all the relevant blogs that are currently nominated along with possibly other links of interest. If you don’t want to visit all of these one by one, just head over to my profile and you’ll see them listed in an easy-to-vote format.

Currently the ACP is the one leading in the Religion category and it’s my personal choice for the top, just because of the LULZ that will ensue. However I do not mind if some of the more heavyweight ones surpass it. I’ve voted all of them up in any case. Unfortunately we still have too few votes. To achieve the top we need at least 250 votes and we have only managed to gather 20 by now.

If you like this idea and want to help further than that, then there is another way: Spread the word.
Currently I’m pretty much the only one pushing for this and I just don’t see any excitement. I am aware of the “Herding Cats” problem plaguing the “Atheist movement” but seriously, this is ridiculous. We can’t even waste 5 minutes doing a symbolic action?

Anyway, the best way to spread the word would be, of course, blogging 🙂 Currently only the Psychodiva has made a small mention of this but I’m certain that if people larger than me talk about it, it will trigger the necessary reaction.

Another way would be to mention it in your own groups. I’v already posted this in The ACP Forum and the newly fledged Atheist Nexus. If you’re at any other place with Atheist presence, consider making a post similar to these and if you have more rights, sending a simple PM to all members to let them know.

Lastly, if you are a nominee, consider placing the Brag code widgets in your sidebars to let your visitors know to lend you a leg up.

Let the Religion Awards Coup begin!

Yay! More Randians come out of the woodwork.

Db0

OK I admit that I’m starting to make it a habit of toying around with Objectivists. For me it’s impossible not to be playful when my “opponents” take themselves so fucking seriously. Plus, they seem to get riled up for no apparent reason, other than, you know, being debated, which further provokes me to make fun of them. And finally, I just can’t seem to be able to avoid them!

This episode, started in a post of the Atheist Blogger who had just discovered Ayn Rand from one video where she had a chance to skewer some theistic thinkings. Since it was at one of the finer moments, Adrian was honestly impressed, which is why I felt I had to jump in and inoculate him, before this horrid philosophy ruined yet another decent person. I was once again in a playful mood.

Which is why, when as expected, Objectivist apologists descended upon up us, (to call us irrational or something) many lulz ensued. However when the last of them posted a huge comment, starting with “All of this is directed at Db0“, I just knew I was in for the epic one. 😀
In all honesty, I could just post the comment here by itself, without any commentary, and it wouldn’t miss much of its hilarity. But of course I know you don’t want to miss my sharp (as a spoon) wit, so without further ado, I present you: Jongalt (LULZ who iz Jon Galt?!).

Ayn rand philosophy:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

?Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition[4]

Dear Jon, this is just a fancy quote. not a philosophy. It is so vague as to to be meaningless.

Religion:————–
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; “he lost his faith but not his morality”
an institution to express belief in a divine power; “he was raised in the Baptist religion”; “a member of his own faith contradicted him”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Nope. Dont see it there….lets try cult

Are you going to quote definitions on me for everything? *Looks down* Oh, I guess you will *groan*
I guess that you are not aware that you can be perfectly fallacious with definitions? In any case, be aware that religion does not mandate fate of deities. One can very well be an atheist and still be religious.

.
———————-
CULT:
followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; “he always follows the latest fads”; “it was all the rage that season”
followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; “it was a satanic cult”
a system of religious beliefs and rituals; “devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hmmmmm, i guess it could be a “sect”, but that would be by virtue of teh fact that it is in opposition to exstablished systems. If thats teh case i can live with that fact, I enjoy living in reality, whether you seem to think it doesnt exist or not.

You’re kidding me? Your definition just proves how it is a cult. Need more evidence? here!

You say that ATHEISM is not a philosophy:

Oh Gawds! I don’t believe you’re seriously going to attempt and define atheism as a philosophy…

philosophy
doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; “self-indulgence was his only philosophy”; “my father’s philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Whoa, I guess it is. Maybe you want to back peddle a bit? That might be prudent at this time.

Gee, yathink?
Dear Jon, maybe you should have looked up the definition of Atheism instead. if you did, you would have noticed that other than the non-belief in deities, Atheism promotes no beliefs and neither the “rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics“. Indeed one can very well be an Atheist and have absolutely no reason to do investigate questions about existence or knowledge.
True, atheists are very likely to also philosophise due to their inquisitive nature, but it is by no means mandatory to be considered one. All you need to do is not to believe in Gods. Fullstop.

Dbo. As Rand has stated and reality dictates, WORDS HAVE A SPECIFIC MEANING.

Don’t you really hate it when people try to defend their positions with…their position? I know I do.
Jon, unless you didn’t realize it, I don’t really care what Rand states and I laugh at your attempt to tell me what reality defines.

Just because you choose to make them mean something else doesnt mean that reality follows. I guess, you could petition webster, britannica and numerous other private companies to add in there:
“Any system by which men come to conclusions using reason and choose to live life according to reality.”

Lolwut?

Anyway about your words argument, just look at the history of the word “Gay”. ‘Nuff said.

Your angry because you cant have your OWN system without contradictions and be allowed to go about your business. Thats fine i guess, until those contradictions are imposed on other people. That is all Rand would argue, besides obviously, you being an irrational person.

Who’s angry? WHO’S FUCKING ANGRY!!
Ahem…
Nah, not me.

Anywayz, who says my system has contradictions? Fuck, you don’t even know what my system is, how can you tell if it has contradictions? Projecting much?

Although I would argue that your in that wagon, since i assume your an atheist and since you reject the idea of a supreme being are therefore living according to reality using a rational system to determine if the claim has any Epitomological value…are you?

Your problem is that you use reason (which is the means to knowledge) to say that epistomology has nothing to do with reason and i quote

——————-
“Epistemology is about knowledge, not a life system as Objectivism tries to be. Modern epistemology is Science, not Objectivism. On not-so-epistemological issues, like morality, Objectivism falls flat on its face.”

MODERN EPISTOMOLOGY: What an unnessesary addition. Epistomology was the pursuit of knowledge 8000 years ago exactly like it is today. Just because our understanding of things changed doesnt mean that our means of doing it has also. IE reason.

Errr, yes it has. It’s called The Scientific Method and it’s been in use only in recent centuries. Yes, reason plays a big role but there are some other things in play.

As for objectivism not being science? LOL

Oh Gawds. I dare not read further…

science:
systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

Ill gladly state positions held by objectivists and
verify them for you. heres one.

Reality exists. Simple to prove, I need you to hold your breath and under no cirrcumstances try and breath. Reality will shortly exert itself over you.
if you dont like that please walk to the nearest mountain and attempt to deny that gravity will yank you to the ground at (9.8 m/s/s (please see newtons law of gravity, which by your standard doesnt exist since knowldge changes day to day I guess, or its just not “modern”).

Gee, you’re a proper nuclear scientist you are.
So, just because one of the positions held by Objectivism is true, then the whole philosophy is? I guess then Christianity is true because, hey it’s not good to steal…
Btw, did anyone ever tell you that as an axiom this is as basic as they go? I could practically base anything on it.

Morality is not based on EPISTOMOLOGY?!
Next time you goto a store try and walk out with not paying the groceries instead, since your morality doesnt require knowledge you should be fine.
Although i warn you, try and remember that you, at one time, were probably told or show that if you do this you will be punished….

Go kill a man: Im sure since you have no knowledge that this is a terrible thing you will be fine. And the knowledge of this has changed since yestarday apparently

Do not feed your child: Since morailty isnt based on knowledge this is fine, how could you know that your child would die?

What!? Can you even separate “knowledge” from the “pursuit of knowledge”. Fuck man, many theists manage to stay relatively moral even when not using epistemology at all. They just have their morals hammered on them as children and don’t bother to ever revise them.

Look, there are moral systems that are attempting an epistemological take on morality, but Objectivism is certainly not one of them.

Here ill help you out once agian. Here is something no other philosopher ever told me and you probably need to hear.

1.)Check your premise. A=A
2.)Reality exists. (You can’t eat your cake and have it to)

NoOoOoooo! I’m meeeeelting….

Oh wait, no I’m not.

However the lame quotes are really killing me. You forgot Man qua man (qua man qua man…ad infinitum)

I also remember feeling like a jack ass when her philosophy made me reject a good portion of another woman I respected prior to her Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the specific book i speak of was called “All the questions you ever wanted to ask an American atheist, with all the answers.”
I vaguely remember trying to go back and read that after aquainting myself with Rands philosophy and realizesing that Mrs.O’hair only had one thing right:
A god doesnt exist. Or at the very least is not within our capablity of Knowing, and further speculation is irellevant, its like looking for unicorns on mars, why assume first when we should go and see then determine it? Any ways, what did she use to determine this? The exact same thing Rand uses to build her understanding of the world, and her system, that you use 1/2 the time, and every person I would hope in this forum uses to formulate answers:
Reason.

Yes yes, everyone uses reason to some degree. It’s only that you Objectivists, like Theists, can’t seem to be able to use reason to look at your own philosophy. It’s called introspection and because of your dogmatic and cyclical view on reason (Objectivism flows from reason and the only reasonable thing is Objectivism, hence if you criticize Objectivism, you’re not reasonable etc..), you have a very effective way of both mentally lobotomising yourselves and ignoring critical arguments.

And with this, the LULZ are over I’m afraid. All said, this little comment did give me something to write on a slow day and I’m certain it might keep me busy in the days to come.

Be sure to visit the original thread where Mark C is in the process of beating him into a pulp as well. I only hope more of these Objectivists come here to stun me with their amazing quotes from Rand.

Now that I said quotes; has any Objectivist after Rand actually made any new quotes? Are they too unworthy to be mentioned or is it that the rest of the cult is going to just dismember the heretic who dares to consider herself quote worthy? Just curious…

Definition of Agnosticism

Db03 Comments

So my recent verbal spar with the Socratic Gadfly moves on. It seems that due to the linkbacks I made to Austin Cline and Adrian Hayter, they were apparently curious enough to see what the post was about and ended up defending my position on Gadfly’s blog (appreciated).
This in turn triggered him to contact me via email and also write about it on his second blog.

During our email conversations, Gadfly did have a more amiable attitude (albeit a bit condescending occasionaly) and we managed to have some progress in finding out exactly what the gist of our disagreement is. In turns out that it is a simple definition issue on the word “Agnosticism” and I will attempt in this post to explain.

Now, I guess the secod post of his was written while tempers were still high and this is why the language is still a bit strong.  Since I have been unbanninated already, I think there’s no point in feeding the flames any more so I’ll keep a more respectful tone.

Gadfly maintains that Agnosticism cannot be logicaly combined with theism. Indeed, by looking at some of the analogies he made on email:

“Agnostic theism” is like “Democratic Republicanism” and “theistic agnosticism” is like “Republican Democratism.” (Allow the neologism for the noun parallel.)

It is obvious that for him an agnostic theist is an oxymoron.

As I mentioned in the previous post. The etymological meaning of the word is “Without Knowledge”. Agnosticism however does not define what you do not have any knowledge about but it is commonly understood that it is about deities. One could very well argue that he is agnostic about abiogenesis or the creation of the universe and that would be a perfectly acceptable phrase.

As pertaining to theism however, agnosticism can easily take one of two common definitions.

  • One can be agnostic about the existence of god(s). This classifies them as Agnostic Atheists. The defining quote would be “I don’t know if gods exist“
  • One can be agnostic about the nature of god(s). This classifies them as Agnostic Theists and the defining quote would be “I don’t know what or which gods exist“.

The difference is small but significant. On both of these definitions, one could even apply various scales of knowledge. Thus an agnostic atheists can verge closer to atheism with “I don’t know if gods exist but there is no reason to believe that they do” and an agnostic theist can approach a religion “I believe the Christian god exists but I don’t know his exact nature (and thus follow no denomination)” – an Agnostic Christian (The group I think most liberal Christians really belong to).

Due to the open nature of the word “Agnostic”, many people default it to either of the two cases described above. In my personal experience, I’ve had far more people who thought of “Agnostic Theist” when hearing “Agnostic” – which is, incidentally, why I started calling myself simply Atheist in the end. This is also why in the article that triggered this approximately half the agnostics go either way.

And this is where I believe Gadfly is wrong. He defaults to “Agnostic Atheist” but he then takes it a step further and asserts that his take on it is the correct one (and gets annoyed that others use it differently).
This is what I have been trying to explain via email but we seem to have reached the “Agree to dissagree” point.

The thing is, at the end of the day, what matters is that we know what we are talking about. It does not matter a bit if we call someone as “Agnostic Atheist”, “Agnostic”, “Fideist” or even “Purple Banana” as long as we are understanding the same thing. It is a fact that just “Agnostic” can mean different things to different people. And by definition, these people are correct.

All we can do when uncertain is simply ask: “Theistic or Atheistic?”. It’s certainly no reason to get upset about.

I wonder who's the clueless American after all…

Db01 Comment

Ready for some Intarwebs drama? The irony is delicious!

So as I was reading the articles of the latest Carnival of the Godless, I happened upon a particular one from the Socratic Gadfly which was making fun of the U.S. Americans of a recent poll, that were claiming Atheism and prayer at the same time. Now that’s all well and good as I’m all for making fun of inanity like that. However there was one comment that I saw that I felt I should respond to:

Hey, idiots. If you believe something, you can’t agnostic about it!

I decided to leave a simple comment, that this was incorrect and one could very well be an agnostic and a theist; Namely a theistic agnostic. I innocently assumed that my comment would help the Gadfly realize that he did a mistake and perhaps avoid embarassing himself in the future by calling people idiots, when in fact they are not (not talking about the “praying atheists” here of course).

For those not very familiar with the word [1. and who can’t be bollocksed to read the article I linked from it], the word “Agnostic” is greek and literally means “without knowledge”. As a result, one can be agnostic about a great many things, including deities. Indeed, there are various ways someone can be agnostic about Theism. A Theistic Agnostic specifically is both a theist and an agnostic and the definition is that he does not have knowledge about the nature of god(s) but believes he/she/they exist. Hell, one can even be a Christian Agnostic! It does not matter that he falls under the subgroup of theism, as the Gadfly insisted, they also fall under the subgroup of agnostics. So yes, you can very well believe in something and still be agnostic.

Anyway, I was not prepared that the Gadgly would stick to his guns and attempt to argue the point and I was wholly unprepared when not only was I told that I do not understand the meaning of the word, not only was I told that I am trolling but I was even called a theist!
Now, one would assume that before someone makes such a claim against someone, they would at the least have attempted to have a cursory look at the other’s profile before making themselves look like an even bigger ignoramus than they already are.

But alas, for the Gadfly the fact that I was supporting this definition of agnosticism was enough of a proof to jump to the conclusion that I must be a thest. The fact that I even had the gall to argue my point was further “proof” that I must be a troll, which only shows that further than agnosticism, the Gadfly does not even know what a “Troll” is. It is a tasty irony that someone who is complaining about cluelessness would himself prove how (shamelessly) clueless he is.

The cherry on the top? It seems that the only thing smaller than his knowledge is his temper. And thus we get to enjoy the Socratic Gadfly having a hissy fit.

Look, here in Dallas, I had a college philosophy professor claim to be an atheist, then talk about praying in the same breath.

I didn’t put up with his bullshit, and I’m not putting up with yours either.

Second, you’re lying, to me and to yourself, when you claim you don’t want to argue about this. You do.

Third, if I clearly presented your metaphysical self-definition to 100 people on the street, 99 would call you a theist.

Your Wiki link? It’s agnostic THEISM, you troll. It supports ME, not you.

Finally, it’s my blog, and I get the last word. Capiche?

If you don’t understand that, understand this: I just banned your IP, as you’ve gone past the edge of being a theist troll.

Well, unfortunately for you Gadfly, you may be able to ban me from your blog (I must really start keeping track of this) but you cannot ban me from speaking or pointing out how wrong you are, or how foolish you look.So I see your “Capiche” and raise you a “Nyah Nyah”! 😛

This was, however, unfortunate in a way. Not because I was banned when I wasn’t even trying to be offensive but because the Gadfly is such a prolific poster that it’s certain various people open to irreligion might stumble upon him and be horribly misguided by his ignorance. That, and he is just another excuse that not all Atheists are very bright or tolerant, but of course the Objectivists already help with that anyway.

UPDATE: Just to let people seeing this know that I’m currently continuing this debate with Socratic Gadly via email where he seems much more amiable. Perhaps it’s the public thing. In any case the basic issue we have at the moment is a definition one.

Namely he believes that Agnosticism equals “Agnostic Atheism” while I assert that it’s more open than that (as per Austin’s comment)

Άθεοι του Nexus

Db0

Μία καινούργια σελίδα δημιουργήθηκε στο διαδίκτυο σαν ένα social group για τους άθεους και αγνωστικιστές. Το όνομα είναι Atheist Nexus. Δέν ξέρω κατά πόσο θα είναι χρήσιμο μετά το facebook αλλά τουλάχιστον θα μας δώσει ένα περιβάλλον με πιο θετικές αντιδράσεις και περιθώρια συζήτησης και συνδέσμων.

Αυτή τη στιγμή, τα μέλη της σελίδας αυξάνωνται ραγδαία αλλά προβλέπω οτί μετά το αρχικό burst δημοσιώτητας, η ταχύτητα θα πέσει. Προσωπικά αναμένα πάνω-κάτω 10.000 μέλη αλλά ελπίζω να βγώ πολύ λάθως.

Anyway, δημιούργησα ένα γρουπάκι για όποιον έλληνα αποφασίσει να έρθει στο πάρτυ και ήδη ειδοποίησα τον πιο “κραγμένο” Έλληνα Άθεο που ξέρω 🙂 Ελπίζω να δω τους περισσότερους σας εκεί.

Spread the word

Flower Power

Db0

Aaah, finally I had one nice relaxing week of vacation. Specifically I went to Viola’s Village and we stayed with her mother who has also an amazing garden. Thus I had the opportunity to test my new camera to see how well it funky function to take flower pictures works.

Some of the the results are below:

3511350835323399

Oh did I also mention that the Garden is amazing?

3535343934483496

We also went for a walk in the forest around the place and I got the opportunity to see wooden mushrooms, duckies and play around with wood photographs 🙂

3378336633513559

Generally it was all around good fun and I got to play around with my m4d photographer skillz. You can the whole collection of pics at the gallery as always but I also uploaded some of, what I think, are the best at my Deviantart profile. So if you’ve got one of there, go and comment (or just do it here 😉 )

3357

Lost the last

Db0

So after 3 years of faithful subscription to last.fm, I’ve finally been unsubscribed. This is because they stopped accepting Paypal subscription payments.

They did however give me 6 months for free so that’s alright 🙂 I think I’ll stay unsubscribed for a while and see how annoying it is for me.

Something is horribly b0rked

Db0

And I don’t have time to fix it now. A bit later. Please hold on

Update: Fixed – Phew.

I think that I will not use the AskApache plugin. Even though it looks very useful (especially since I’ve been mildly hacked once) it managed to b0rk the site twice (although I will admit that the first time it was my fault as well).

However the fact that it is so easy to break your site, even if you have some passing knowledge of web administration like me, makes it a bit dangerous for the faint of heart.

Another problem is that I couldn’t even leave a comment at the plugin’s page due to the heavy spam filtering or whatever. This is especially exasperating when your site is freaking up (not finding the admin pages and whatnot) and you’d like some support. Fortunately I managed to search for keywords and find a comment left by the author of the plugin advising how to fix my problem.

Very big Note: When the author talks about the .htaccess file. He means the .htaccess in the wp-admin/ folder not the one in your domain root. Do not touch the one in the root! I learned that the hard (or rather, the run around in panic, waving my hands around) way,