Saturday, February 18, 2012

Atheists to chant slogans on the Mall



Here is the promo for the so-called "Reason Rally," in Washington , D.C. on March 24. It is being billed as the "largest secular event ever." I'm mentioning it here to do my small part in helping so save them from the embarrassment of producing fewer participants than a moderate to small size pro-life rally.

I have already commented on it here, but I will also note that they are calling this rally of people who profess to support "reason," "science," and "secularism" the "largest gathering of its kind in history." I guess they forgot about the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Maybe they should add "history" to their list of emphases.

No word yet on whether national park officials will allow them to operate a guillotine on the Mall.

There will, of course, be no Bastille to storm, but will we be doing this the same way we've done large-scale atheist projects before? Will we consider women "passive citizens" who were denied the vote because they didn't have "the moral and physical qual­ities" to exercise political rights? Will we deny the égalité in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" to non-whites?

Just wondering. These things should all probably be clarified as we approach the rally date.

The video is produced by an outfit called the "Thinking Atheist," to distinguish themselves, I guess, from the non-thinking atheists. You know, the ones who take certain of their anti-religious presuppositions as unquestioned dogmas and spend their time simply drawing inferences from those.

I was assuming, given the word "reason" in their title, that they would have speakers who were actually interested in objective rational thought, but I see people like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and P. Z. Myers, are on the bill, so that's not looking too promising.

UPDATE:
See P.Z. Myers response here.
See our response to P.Z. Myers here.

35 comments:

Martin S. said...

Funded by billionaires and just useful idiots to the secularist cult http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2012/02/17/religious-freedom-triumph-therapeutic/

Martin S. said...

You know the one that cares for liberality not a whit, only for the means of crushing freedom and Christianity wherever they're found.

Arab Spring?
http://markdurie.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/saboteurs-for-islamic-movement.html

Daniel said...

Martin,

I thought Robespierre & Co. were mostly Deists rather than atheists?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Human Ape said...

You're being ridiculed at Interesting associations.

Is it true about you being a creationist? Do you have any evidence for this childish fantasy?

In a previous comment someone wrote about "crushing freedom and Christianity". I'm all for freedom but the Christian Death Cult has got to go. Christianity is good for nothing but mental child abuse. Christians are constantly at war against science and science education to defend their dead Jeebus. Enough is enough. You gullible morally corrupt Christians are going to have to grow up or get out.

judgedead said...

why do you creationists insist on making yourselves look so stupid all the time?
Oh I see it's because you are.

Chris P said...

I used to hear a lot of Catholic processions "chanting slogans" - all to no avail. At least atheists don't waste time reading and rereading the same book over and over and not getting agreement on what it says. You've had 2000 years and yet the whole book is still full of contradictory tripe and there are new interpretations every day.

You waste time on prayer and church - none of which does any good except by way of running an odd social club and biased networking system. When you guys can all agree on one religion - get back to use. Remember - you only have to be atheistic to just one more religion to the thousands you are already "atheistic" towards to become an atheist. Mathematically, rounding to 2 decimal places - you ARE an atheist. But then the religious are rather poor at mathematics and statistics.

Art said...

Will we consider women "passive citizens" who were denied the vote because they didn't have "the moral and physical qual­ities" to exercise political rights?

According to the patriarchy that rules of the Christian world, the Bible says we should. There's a reason conservative Christians so despise the 19th Amendment.

Will we deny the égalité in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" to non-whites?

Well, that's a pretty Biblical thing to do, so why wouldn't a conservative propose such a course of action?

Anonymous said...

I'd really love to know what specific ideas or arguments by Dawkins or any other Reason Rally speakers you disparage that you believe are lacking in logic or reason. Just declaring that they are deficient is not convincing, so why not pick a few from the books or articles written by Dawkins that you have read and lay out how flawed they are?

tmaxPA said...

I presume next time Martin attends a religious service, he will engage in killing his family and flying planes into buildings.

Martin Cothran said...

Human Ape:

Is it true about you being a creationist? Do you have any evidence for this childish fantasy?

I suppose if I were a creationist there would be evidence for it, like, maybe, me saying I was one, which, of course, I never have.

Of course, I've pointed out to P.Z. that I am not, but despite the evidence to the contrary, he persists in clinging to this childish fantasy that I am.

I would suggest if you are going to ask me to justify some childish fantasy, you'd better check first whether I actually believe it.

Martin Cothran said...

Human Ape,

The rest of your post is quite moralistic. I suppose you have a morality behind your moralism? If so, where did it come from?

Martin Cothran said...

judgedead,

why do you creationists insist on making yourselves look so stupid all the time?
Oh I see it's because you are.


I'm sorry, I've looked at your comment here trying to find an argument or something else intelligent to which I could respond, but am not finding it. Generally speaking, even the atheists who post on my blog at least make a pretense of making an argument.

If you need help doing this, you may want to consult my Traditional Logic: Books I and II.

Martin Cothran said...

Daniel,

I thought Robespierre & Co. were mostly Deists rather than atheists?

Robespierre's "Cult of the Supreme Being" was, in fact, deistic, unfortunately is was preceded by the atheistic "Cult of Reason."

Martin Cothran said...

Chris P.,

But then the religious are rather poor at mathematics and statistics.

You mean, like, Pascal, Leonard Euler, Carl Gauss, Leibniz, Descartes, Georg Cantor, Kurt Gödel, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus?

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

According to the patriarchy that rules of the Christian world, the Bible says we should.

Patriarchal?

Have you noticed that all the atheist posters here whose gender can be identified are male? What are you all doing with your women?

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

I'd really love to know what specific ideas or arguments by Dawkins or any other Reason Rally speakers you disparage that you believe are lacking in logic or reason. Just declaring that they are deficient is not convincing, so why not pick a few from the books or articles written by Dawkins that you have read and lay out how flawed they are?

You obviously haven't been reading my blog for very long. I would suggest reading the following just for starters:

1. My review of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion: http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2006/11/meet-new-atheism-same-as-old-atheism.html

2. "What you need to know to deal with the Dawkinites": http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-you-need-to-know-to-deal-with.html

3. "The Tortured Logic of the New Atheism": http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2009/07/tortured-logic-of-new-atheism.html

4. "P.Z. Myers: 'I shouldn't be taken seriously by philosophers'": http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2010/04/p-z-meyers-tacit-admission-i-shouldnt.html

5. "Jerry Coyne's scientific faith": http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2010/10/scientific-faith-jerry-coynes.html

6. "How morality 'seems' to Sam Harris": http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-morality-seems-to-sam-harris-review.html

Art said...

Have you noticed that all the atheist posters here whose gender can be identified are male? What are you all doing with your women?

LOL

Number of speakers at the Reason Rally who are women - at least 9 (I don't know if the list has been finalized).

Number of Catholic priests (or bishops, or cardinals) who are or were women - 0.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Number of speakers at the Reason Rally who are women - at least 9 (I don't know if the list has been finalized).

I hope you all are not trotting these poor women out as showpieces. Where are their books? I mean, you've got Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett and Mills and Barker and Stenger and Smith ...

Not a woman in the bunch.

Maybe you all could try affirmative action or something.

Just trying to help you all out with a potential image problem.

Art said...

I hope you all are not trotting these poor women out as showpieces. Where are their books? I mean, you've got Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett and Mills and Barker and Stenger and Smith ...

Number of titles found in 5 minutes of googling by atheists who are women - 18.

Number of titles in all of recorded history authored by Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, or popes who are or were women - 0.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Number of titles found in 5 minutes of googling by atheists who are women - 18.

Mmmhmm. And how many men did you find?

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Number of titles in all of recorded history authored by Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, or popes who are or were women - 0.

We are not the ones running around yapping about women's rights, either.

Besides, the positions you list are all positions of servitude. In fact, each position you list is one of greater servitude than the one before. Pope Leo X's very motto was "Servus servorum Dei": Servant of the servants of God.

So basically what you are suggesting is that the Catholic Church is ill serving women because it won't put them in positions of servitude.

I am disappointed in you.

Art said...

We are not the ones running around yapping about women's rights, either.


That's pretty obvious.

I'm not sure it's something to boast about, though.

Besides, the positions you list are all positions of servitude.

So, the place of women in the Catholic Church is beneath that of servants.

What is lower than a servant? A slave?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Martin.

Unknown said...

this is hilarious. Nice to see tht again, creationists and Christians can't think up anything new, and have to lie consistently about history, science, and atheism. I'm sure this blog's author will take this as "insulting", when I call him a liar with evidence. Many do when caught out. I do wonder, have any Christians actually read their bibles and noted that their god hates liars *and* their lies? Right there in Romans 3 it says that even lying "for" their god is wrong.

Martin Cothran said...

Unknown,

So you have evidence that I lied? Funny, but you didn't mention any. But while your dealing with falsehoods, you might want to document your assertion that I'm a creationist.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

I know this is rather complicated for a devotee of scientism like yourself, so let me try to clarify here:

Priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes are servants of the members of the Church. They are in positions of greater, not lesser servitude that those they serve.

If A is lesser than B, then B is great than A. Check it out some time.

Art said...

Here's what you are saying, Martin:

Women are not fit to be servants.

They are not fit to be servants of servants.

They are not fit to be servants of servants of servants.

They are not fit to be servants of servants of servants of servants.

They wouldn't seem to be fit to be considered people, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

Maybe that's why "they" are not running around "yapping about womens' rights".

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

So your solution to women not being treated well enough is to put them in positions of servitude?

Check.

Robert Oerter said...

"Will we consider women "passive citizens" who were denied the vote because they didn't have "the moral and physical qual­ities" to exercise political rights? Will we deny the égalité in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" to non-whites?"

Hmm... Christians denied leadership positions to women for about 1700 years prior to the French Revolution. (And continue to do so today.) Christians, for centuries before the Revolution, based their institution of slavery on the Bible. (And continued to do so for a century beyond.)

And you want to blame the ATHEISTS for these things? And you are the author of a textbook on LOGIC?

Martin S. said...

Scraping the bottom of barrel of atheist demotivators here I see Martin.

Recent scandalous elevator induced misogyny had the coffee splurting all over the gnu-net. Get one's own divided temple in order first I say. Maybe get de Botton or Ballmer to fund an atheist misogyny awareness program. Telling women they're random collocations of atoms that natural selection should rape, because you know good/evil is an illusion, soon to be embraced by the nothingness - clearly needs to be drummed in to your community more effectively.

Martin Cothran said...

Oooookay.

Anonymous said...

I hope you all are not trotting these poor women out as showpieces. ...
Not a woman in the bunch.

Maybe you all could try affirmative action or something.

Just trying to help you all out with a potential image problem.


You criticize atheists for...I don't know, do you think they print "No wimmenz" on the atheist meet-and-greet fliers? Of course when atheists point out they're making the effort to make their events more relevant to women you turn that into a bad thing too. So I'm guessing this isn't a real criticism, this is probably just bad-faith poop-slinging.

That seems to be your MO, though. I'd give you credit for engaging in satire rather than poop-throwing. But. You're not really in a position to engage in satire when you say things like this:

"You know the one that cares for liberality not a whit, only for the means of crushing freedom and Christianity wherever they're found."

Really? One example please. Seriously, just one serious example of atheists in the U.S. in the last few years "crushing freedom and Christianity."

At worst we're giving you guys what "liberal" Christians have been giving gays for a few decades now: "I don't want to know, I don't want to hear about it, just keep it out of public and in the bedroom." In the case of Christianity there's even a few bits in the Bible about avoiding ostentatious public displays of piety so if anything you should probably thank us.

-Dan L.

Anonymous said...

You mean, like, Pascal, Leonard Euler, Carl Gauss, Leibniz, Descartes, Georg Cantor, Kurt Gödel, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus?

The "these guys were smart AND religious!" lists always crack me up. Could you please redo your list without including heterodox believers?

Heck, I'll do it for you: Kepler , Copernicus (I suspect these two were secretly heterodox actually), Pascal, MAYBE Descartes, and Euler. The only person on this list who worked on problems that are above the difficulty of American high school mathematics is Euler.

If Gauss and Leibniz were alive today you'd be denouncing them as heretics.

-Dan L.

Martin Cothran said...

Dan,

I just like to give Art a hard time, and many of my remarks are admittedly hyperbole. It's just a part of what we do here. I realize this probably isn't apparent to the newbies on the threads.

As I have explained before, the complete and entire purpose of this blog is my amusement.

But anyone else is perfectly welcome to perpetrate their amusement on me as well.

Martin Cothran said...

Dan L.,

You apparently didn't read the post I was responding to. Chris P. said, "But then the religious are rather poor at mathematics and statistics."

He said "religious," not "orthodox." His statement was utterly, blitheringly false.

Martin Cothran said...

Dan L.

The only person on this list who worked on problems that are above the difficulty of American high school mathematics is Euler.

Really? Godel? Cantor?

If I go into a local public high school and flush a math teacher out of a classroom, you really think he's going to be able to explain the Incompleteness Theorem to me?