« covet thy neighbor's blog posts | Main | blogging challenge: davezilla v. small victory »

i summoned anger

It’s a publicly known fact that I’m an atheist. It’s not something I’m ashamed of, nor do I feel I should be ashamed of it. Everyone believes - or does not believe - in something different. Even though I may not view the religious world the same way you do, I would never call you an idiot for the beliefs you do have. No one should be able to make a claim on your intelligence based on what your views on religion are.

I started reading this post about plagiarism. What I read into it was that Raving Atheist was not so much plagiarizing Clubbeaux as (weakly) making fun of him. It is easy to see how Clubbeaux thought of it as plagiarism and frankly, if Raving Atheist was indeed making fun of Clubbeaux, he should have either linked to that post or put at least a footnote in saying so.

The more I read, the less interested in the plagiarism aspect I became. What enraged me was both the incredibly racist tone Clubbeaux’s original post and the ensuing comments and his insistence that atheists are idiots. A few quotes from Club, taken from both his site and his comments on RA’s site:

  • "But I guess if she had any brains she wouldn't be an atheist."
  • 'I have never met Christians who like facts less than atheists do."
  • "Meanwhile Delilah can't understand my "problem" with plagiarism. Atheists."
  • " That's the thing about you atheists, you're always so sheep-quick to believe any old silly thing that makes you feel better."
  • "But as I've said, if atheists could think they wouldn't be atheists in the first place."

And this latest comment from him:

I've noticed among the most religiously faithful atheists a striking tendency to adopt emotionally-pleasing stances on subjects such as evolution, race and whatever, and dress them up as factual, logical, thought-out positions, but when I ask for the facts behind them I always get this bitter blast of invective, and when I look up the atheist's run away.

Ask an atheist who proclaims that evolution is true what his facts are and he'll launch into a lengthy rant against Creationism, pronounce you hopeless and run away. Ask one how she knows for a fact that God does not exist and she'll start yammering about the medieval Catholic Church before she excuses herself.

Same "thought" process, really.

The only invective I see here is his. I'm more than willing to go to the mat for atheism and have a reasonable discussion, but when I get emails like this one:

I can prove that belief in God is more reasonable than belief in atheism, that's fairly easy to do.." I tend to think that an debate with Clubbeaux isn't going to go too well. Not when he considers my belief system unreasonable. That starts the argument off with Club already shutting down any semblance of reasonable discussion.
By lumping all atheists together in generalizing statements such as those above, Clubbeaux is stating that I am an idiot, I am immoral, I cannot think for myself.

Let’s try some tenth grade math here. Remember proofs and theorems?

Using Clubbeaux’s standards:
Michele is an atheist.
All atheists are brainless.
Therefore, Michele is brainless.

That would be proven true.

Using the standards of the real world, we would then try this theorem:

Some atheists are idiots.
Michele is an atheist.
Therefore, Michele is an idiot.

That would be proven false.

In an email to me, Clubbeaux stated:

I think you can think for yourself, but if you're a self-proclaimed atheist you're not doing so, since it's axiomatic that "There is no God" is not a logically defensible statement. "I don't know if there's a God or not" is perfectly acceptable, but that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is one who states that she knows there is no God, yet who is unable - because it's impossible - to support that belief with any proof, any facts or anything other than her own desire that it be so. You can express the reality of what you really think by saying "I don't know if there is a God or not but I really don't want there to be one," that's honest, but "There is no God" is petulant and unthinking.

What’s the difference in the statements “There is a God” and “There is no God?” Neither of those statements can be proven one way or the other.

You can look at it another way, as does Todd:

The irony here is that I've always understood atheists to be more intelligent and enlightened than religious fanatics. Since they are able to remove the divine from the decision making process, it takes on a more rational aspect. Invoking extra-human powers to help prove a point has never won any arguments with me. Ever. It just tells me you can't think for yourself. To me, the atheist was someone who had obviously put some thought into the rejection of religion, and therefore was capable of intelligent and rational discussion.

Unless you worship a piece of cement or a potato that looks like Mother Mary, your belief system should not call into account your intelligence.

Blanket statements like “all atheists are idiots” only serve to make the speaker himself look like the idiot.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference i summoned anger:

» Update from Overtaken by Events
Apparently, the raging controversy I alluded to below (the plagarism one, not the lightning one), has turned out to be... [Read More]

» The Raging Plagiarst? Now sick, twisted blog vendetta from Arguing with signposts...
Steve at Little Tiny Lies is back on the blogrounds today and ... wait ... what have we here? The Raving Atheist aka plagiarist? Or is there another explanation? Steve's take seems plausible. Of course, an atheist has no obligation... [Read More]

» Atheism from JimSpot
There's a bit of a debate about aethism & plagerism going on, A Small Victory: i summoned anger. It's sparked... [Read More]

» Atheism from JimSpot
There's a bit of a debate about aethism & plagerism going on, A Small Victory: i summoned anger. It's sparked... [Read More]

» Atheism from JimSpot
There's a bit of a debate about aethism & plagerism going on, A Small Victory: i summoned anger. It's sparked... [Read More]

» Conversion from The Raving Atheist
People change their minds about many things, important and trivial, over the course of a lifetime. Liberals become conservatives, Republicans become Democrats, pro-choicers become pro-lifers, opera-lovers become rap-lovers, etc. They convert. Frequentl... [Read More]

Comments

Well such a wingnut comment deserved ridicule. Good for Raving Atheist.

I hate hitting return before I've finished ranting.

Further, what does belief in God have to do with the issue that RA was commenting on? Talk about your religious red herrings.

As the token theist, I want to throw this into the mix:

"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words.  I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." ~Isaac Asimov, I.  Asimov:  A Memoir


Asimov, atheist that he was, had a much clearer view of what I think God must be than that jackass, Clubbeaux.

Further, I'm not a big fan of RA--I find him slightly annoying and highly self-righteous--but that wasn't plagiarism, it was satire. Clubbeaux might wish to learn the difference.

Finally, on race relations, I just want to say that Barbershop said everything that I want to say, and said it better.

As a person with a totally left-the-ballpark belief system, I can't stand those people who put down those of the other belief or non-belief systems.
Can'twe just all get along and satire each other in peace?

Because the existence of God can't be definitively proven, and because the absence of God can't be definitively proven, I tend to straddle a belief system that allows for a God with scientific boundaries (i.e. God is the ultimate scientist and we're just unlocking some of the mysteries He dangles in front of us.)

I am a whacked-out polytheist and animist who nonetheless almost always sides with atheists in theological/religious disputes - except, of course, when they say I'm crazy for worshipping concrete. ;) The vast majority of atheists are very happy to live and let live; too many monotheists are not.

That husband of mine is a smarty-smart. I knew I married him for a reason (even if I am a Christian myself).

The really sad part is that in the comments on ravingatheist.com Clubbeaux actually thinks that he's winning the debate and can't see how he's been baited and ridiculed...

I can't watch anymore...

The difference between an assertion and its negation exist in two separate spheres, the logical and the epistemological. A statement A and its negation not-A may be equally logically defensible (or indefensible) but that has nothing to say about their defensibility on epistemological grounds. The fundamental mistake that many opponents of atheism make is to point out that the statement 'there is a God' and the statement 'there is no God' are equal from a logical standpoint and then use that as a prop for either agnosticism or a weak form of theism. The rejoinder, as the physical chemist Peter Atkins has pointed out, is to say that the statements 'there is a teapot in orbit about Pluto', and 'there is not a teapot in orbit about Pluto' are not equal in any meaningful sense. None of us is agnostic about Plutonian teapots: we rightly reject the first statement on the grounds of implausibility. This is an epistemological standpoint, not a logical one. Nothing but an exhaustive search of the space around Pluto could totally convince us of the correctness of the second assertion, but as time went by and no teapot was found, our confidence in its truth and in the consequent falsehood of the first statement would rise without limit. This is essentially the way mechanist, scientific atheists such as myself came about our atheism - by noticing that the universe appears to function identically with and without a deity. Using the principle of parsimony, we therefore reject the notion of God. Other fundamental issues, such as the appeal to a designer on the grouds of the complexity of creation, founder on the problem they are trying to explain.

If Clubbeaux genuinely believes that atheists are stupid, he might wish to ponder why it is that as educational level increases, so does the prevalence of atheism, with its zenith found amongst the ranks of people for whom the label 'stupid' would scarcely seem apposite - namely theoretical physicists at the summit of their craft. He might also like to call me stupid to my face - I've been accused of many things, but being stupid is not one I've experienced in quite some time.

Clubbeaux's exhibited the logical fallacies of straw man, argumentum ad verecundiam, petitio principii and argumentum ad hominem, all in the space of a few lines. Most impressive.

I realized after the first couple of comments from Clubbeaux at his own site regarding TRA that he wasn't worth the bother and that the "holier-than-thou" act many of us use on our blogs is for him no act at all.

He really is a self-righteous twit of a zealot.

"I think you can think for yourself, but if you're a self-proclaimed atheist you're not doing so, since it's axiomatic that "There is no God" is not a logically defensible statement. "I don't know if there's a God or not" is perfectly acceptable, but that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist."

Agnostic v. atheist is nothing more than a semantic difference, so that's fairly ridiculous to say. It seems like he pretty much validated the idea of non-belief.

Yeah!! What everyone else said!

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic. From my point of view, pure atheism does require an element of faith. However, that hardly provides a platform for an attack from religious believers, who themselves rely on faith.

I don't have any problem with anyone who believes or dis-believes in any supernatural entities. In fact, I believe that faith can be a positive element in people's lives. The problem comes, of course, when folks aren't content to merely enjoy their faith, and decide to try to impose it on others. That's a definining, nasty characteristic of all zealots. Some atheists are zealots, but there are a lot more religious followers than there are atheists.

The real problem is zealotry under any name. With the destructive power of technology expanding at an exponential rate, we may all end up being their victims...

belief

\Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See Believe.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

And even more pertinent...
To Clubbo:
"I spoke to God this morning and he don't like you"
Ozzy

Belief is tribal.

The correctness of one's belief system is directly associated with one's social status and ability to impose some sorta fucked up percieved superiority over others.

Conversely, a belief structure is structured in order for an individual to overcome those limitations common to humanity (need to justify self-importance, etc) and motivate themselves towards achievement, yada yada yada...

If a system helps, then what the fuck? I mean, it's not as if anyone can claim any of the right fuckin' answers round here. If it's a tool for social advancement, or a power kick, then get a life already, huh?

That's my theory, I figure. As far as I'm concerned, life is coloured by personal perspectives, personal negatives and positives. If truth is subjective, then attempts to construct universal systems of truth and morality are doomed to failure.

That's mostly why people are flawed, I imagine. Socially, it's not enough for somebody to be able to stand tall on their own, unless they're also standing on the prone bodies of others.

Power? Money? Status? Fuck it (dumb animals)...

I'm not against money, by the way. Money can do great things (like bring delivery pizza and mail order DVDs to your house...and, yeah, some humanitarian stuff too).

However, I just feel that, if you're using anything (money, job, religion) as a focal statistic to create a sorta human league table or something, then, bubba, you're just kidding yourself...

Hey, choose the right statistic, and you've got a pretty good chance of being better than everyone else too...

Unless you're a Dallas Cowboys fan. You lot are screwed any way you look at it, I'm afraid...

I'm still having trouble with Clubbeaux's original post. Maybe it's just me, but it reads like Clubbeaux is upset that Ernest Avants, a Klansman who allegedly murdered a black man -- who was found shot 17 times -- in Mississippi in 1966 in an effort to draw Martin Luther King to the state (apparently so that they could then assassinate him -- far be it from me to figure out the thought processes of the white supremacist), was finally brought to justice.
So...if you're old and infirm and the murder you comitted happened years ago, you should be allowed to get away with it, or at least avoid the legal consequences for murder?
Keerist, the mind at work over at that site...normally the persecution complex on display there would have me laughing at the sweet, sweet crazy. But that original post points to something pathological. Keerist.

Brian, I had a BIG problem with his original post. I think Raving Atheist did as well and his satirical if misguided post was what followed from that.

The racism and elitism inherent in Clubbeaux's post on this subject is astounding.

Oh yeah, I'm sure a lot of people saw that too...that post, though was just one of those things that made me go "mwah?"

Michelle, as I explain in my latest post, the whole purpose of the "plagiarism" was to set Clubbeaux up for my Godidiot post on him the next day. There's a long e-mail correspondence between myself and Jody confirming the scheme, including the posting of Jody's angry comment attacking me as a racist. I have made 292 consecutive posts without EVER talking about ANYTHING about atheism and religion, and the notion that I would suddenly start spouting ugly, racist, non-theological claptrap out of the blue is absolutely insane.

And if I did, for some crazy reason, the last thing I would do is steal from a nutjob like Clubbeaux, who had been attacking me for several days, who had gotten 300 comments as a result of my linking to him, who and posted a comment on my site just two hours before I posted "plagiarized" item. Of course I knew he would see it and recognize it, but (as confirmed by my correspondence with Jody) I assumed Clubbeaux would DELETE the racist post from his siteout of shame and DENY authorship when I pinned it on him the next day. I never in a million years expected that he would proudly claim authorship and charge me with plagiarism.

Clubbeaux is now going around denying that the post is racist, and challenging me to show how it is. None of this, of course, is relevant to the charge of plagiarism. If I didn't think it was racist, why on earth would I publish it without attribution on my site, KNOWING that a man would had been attacking me for several days would be watching? And why, of all the conceivable non-religious topics in the blogosphere, would I pick THAT one from THAT person?

Obviously, linking to the post or putting a footnote to it (as you suggest) would have defeated the entire purpose of the plan. My Godidiot post will be the "footnote," and it will make fun of him. Indeed, how could I expect anyone to think I was making fun of him, if my plan were to forever accept credit for the racist comments without ever revealing him as the author?

Pure sorryness. Malicious. Sad, really.

And still plagiarized:

"n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own."

dictionary.com

As you yourself mention: "Obviously, linking to the post or putting a footnote to it (as you suggest) would have defeated the entire purpose of the plan."

You could have posted your Godidiot post without using plagiarism, but I guess the ends justify the means here.

The vast majority of atheists are very happy to live and let live

For much the same reason that Jews are generally non-evangelical and willing to live and let live; for most of human history, and to a lesser extent even today, it isn't really safe to do otherwise. The best-case scenario is social ostracism.

Dan, Jews are not non-evangelical out of reasons of personal safety. Judaism is a religion taken most seriously by its adherents, and we try to talk people out of converting during the conversion process. The reason behind that is that you are never "excommunicated" as a Jew, and a nonpracticing Jew is seen as a loss to the community.

There are a few small Orthodox Jewish sects that attempt to attract converts, but for now, it's only a tiny minority.

The fact that Jewishness happens to be socially unacceptable in many places has nothing to do with our lack of evangelical Jews.

Setting people up as "Godidiots" and then setting that someone aflame for returning the favor strikes me as a little sick and twisted. On both sides. Clubbeaux retains his spot in my favorites folder. The Raving Atheist will not be joining him.

Isn't TRA's labeling of Club as a "Godidiot" as bigoted as as Club's labeling of ateists? How can one be excused while the other is flogged mercilessly?

sorry - I meant atheists!

Shanti: No. You have to read my original definition of who a "Godidiot." is. It's someone who makes an inane and poorly-reasoned theological argument in support of a moral, political or legal position." Certainly you agree that some people make such arguments?

If you like, you can run an "Atheidiot" of the Week Award for someone who uses atheism in such a manner. But I'll never win, because all of my moral positions are perfect.

Shanti: No. You have to read my original definition of who a "Godidiot." is. It's someone who makes an inane and poorly-reasoned theological argument in support of a moral, political or legal position." Certainly you agree that some people make such arguments?

If you like, you can run an "Atheidiot" of the Week Award for someone who uses atheism in such a manner. But I'll never win, because all of my moral positions are perfect.