Archive
No such thing as atheists?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
I read this blog post by PZ Myers about Missouri representative Emanuel Cleaver. In a TV appearance, he said that there is “no such thing” as an atheist, because “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
I wrote to Cleaver on his website about this. To send him your thoughts as well, click here. Below is what I wrote.
I caught part of your interview with Candy Crowley in which you said there’s no such thing as an atheist, and your reasoning for this was that “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
My name is Dave Muscato and I’m an atheist. All that means is that I don’t believe any gods are actually real, the same way you and I both don’t believe Santa Claus is actually real.
Putting aside for the moment that your reasoning is a textbook example of a “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, you may or may not know this, but the phrase “In God We Trust” was not added to US paper currency until 1957. You read that correctly. The phrase was added to our money as a religious response to the so-called “godless communists” during the Cold War.
I would greatly prefer to carry around US money that didn’t have this 1950s addition. Perhaps, as a lawmaker, you could take a stand for separation of church & state, and advocate that this phrase be removed from our currency?
In the meantime, I’ll make do with what’s issued, just like my fellow 25-million or so atheist Americans do.
I have to say that in Matthew 19:21, Jesus said, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions, and give the money to the poor.”
Using your logic, shouldn’t I say that there’s no such thing as a Christian, given that no respectable Christian should walk around with any money in his pocket at all?
I would love to hear back from you about this. Looking forward to your response,
Dave Muscato
Vice President, University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
dave@davemuscato.com
Here is the relevant part of the interview:
Tell Cleaver what you think about this, and please copy & paste what you send him in the comment section below – I’d love to see it.
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Embarrassed by PZ!? I think not.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Moshe Averick, a creationist rabbi, posted a blog entry the other day, asking if we atheists are embarrassed by PZ Myers. His assumption is based off a criticism that PZ gives of Intelligent Design in one of his talks. PZ uses an analogy to show how complex things can come about through natural processes. The analogy he uses is that of driftwood on a shore, a complicated mixed-up pile of driftwood that a person probably could not recreate without looking at it. He juxtaposes this with a brick wall, which has a purpose, is much simpler than the pile of driftwood, and was intelligently designed by man.
Averick’s problem with this, which he struggles to accurately explain, is that PZ is using a straw-man argument. Averick states:
In any case, no self-respecting ID theorist would ever use the term “complexity.” The terms that are always used are “functional complexity” or “specified complexity.” In other words, complexity that achieves some pre-determined goal, complexity that clearly functions towards a specific purpose. The argument is that “functional complexity” and “specified complexity” clearly are the result of intelligent intervention. A pile of driftwood is immediately recognizable for exactly what it is; a random, disorganized, purposeless collection of….well, driftwood! To describe this argument as flawed logic would be misleading; we first would have to dignify it by labeling it as some form of logic in the first place. It is not flawed logic, it is simply ridiculous.
For the moment I will the fact that Intelligent Design proponents do use the term “complexity” and that “functional complexity” or “specified complexity” are therefore, not the always used. I will give him, that PZ Myers’ analogy does not address these “special” forms of complexity. This is, however, no reason to be ashamed of PZ. As I stated earlier, the ID community frequently uses the term complexity without these modifiers, which I have just heard about in this article (Granted, I don’t do much research on Intelligent Design, as I prefer my fiction reading to include more adventure). This would be a straw-man if PZ was directly addressing Averick, or people who regularly use these term, but that is not the case.
Furthermore, these “special” forms of complexity do nothing to help the Intelligent Design Proponent’s cause. They now also have to show that life is complex in a way that “achieves some pre-determined goal”. In order to do so, it would really seem like some consciousness would have to exist already in order to desire such a goal. If so, they must now prove God’s existence, or at least that of a consciousness that created life and wants it to achieve this unknown goal. Both of these seem to be unlikely conclusions to come to given the evidence we are provided with, and in Averick’s own opinion, we should not ignore fact and logic in favor of an agenda.
To answer Rabbi Averick’s question, No, I am not ashamed of PZ Myers. I am in fact proud to have such an intelligent man supporting the causes of skepticism and rational inquiry. In fact, I see nothing in your post that actually gives reason one should be ashamed, unless you think that his use of the word “Fuck” is reason to be ashamed of him. In which case , Fuck no! I am a bit fucking fond of the word myself.
Finally, if you think that functionally or specifically complex things are proof of something having been created, perhaps you should consider that the concept of God seems to clearly function towards a specific pre-determined goal, much like a brick wall…
Granted, brick walls aren’t intended to prevent rational thought.
Tony Lakey, President of MU SASHA, is a sophomore at Mizzou majoring in philosophy & minoring in sociology. He posts updates to the SASHA blog every Friday (He plans to anyway)
