I notice that you're using MY content
It's not a problem, except for the fact that you don't include a link back to the article on my site. Failure to do so is unethical and cowardly, which does help confirm my general opinion of believers, but probably isn't in your best interest.
--
PZ Myers, Ph.D. (320) 589-6343/fax 6371
Division of Science & Math 2135, 2390 Science
University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN 56267 http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Interesting veiled threat, there. I have always attributed the articles to PZ's place, and the dates corellate well, so I assumed that an intellegent source could find them at PZ's place. Unethical and cowardly? My, my. PZ can't seem to converse without personal attacks, and now veiled threats.
But, in order to keep his blood pressure down, I will include the link in the future. Sorry PZ. Lean back, take a breath and smash a cracker. You'll feel better.
14 comments:
"which does help confirm my general opinion of believers"
What the hell is that? An uncalled-for swipe at "believers", whatever that means. I wish these people would be forced to replace the word "religion" and "believer" with a full definition of what they mean, every time they use it.
Since PZ is clearly a metaphysical materialist, should we call him a "believer" in that worldview? Can I have very general, dismissive, and holier-than-thou opinions about those types of "believers?" Can I call out PZ for believing in a worldview that doesn't appear to have a shred of rational evidence for it?
SCIENCE!!!!!!!1!11!!one!!1!!
It's PZ's internet Stan, you're just living in it.
The "to do so" that the "but probably isn't in your best interest" is connected to the "link back to the article on my site".
I feel he is saying that having a link to his site won't help advance your Christian apologetics cause.
I don't think he cares that you are violating his copyright because he says it's not a problem. I don't think his blood pressure has been raised one bit, he seems rather dismissive. I've seen blogs deleted over copyright claims so this seems so relaxed. I can't see the angry you seem to be projecting on him. Sorry.
I have a whole category of PZ stuff, all of which is linked back to his blog. PZ's email was probably just a drive-by shoot-off-his-mouth thing. Think he will link to this blog?
But just in case there is anyone left in the universe who hasn't heard of PZ Meyers and his blog, pharyngula, here is his url:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula
I'd guess that the vast majority of internet people actually don't know who PZ is. It's just the people interested in this debate, i.e. people who would be reading your blog, who would undoubtedly be familiar with him.
In the large scheme of things, he's really a small fish.
Stan, this quote:
...which does help confirm my general opinion of believers...
...is exactly the kind of remark that I would personally NEVER make.
PZ is making a ridiculous statement by supporting his GENERAL opinion of believers based on what you did on your blog. He should have addressed you, and you only. It is very illogical of him to 'confirm' his general opinion of all believers based on this tiny incident.
PZ should stick to biology and stop talking about believers as some sort of large group of people he can laugh at.
I think it's necessarily wrong to talk about groups of people, such as 'believers', and attribute them other non-related characteristics like he just did.
Perhaps this will clarify parts of what I told you by email...
Good point about the believer reference. Amusingly, if the atheist is true to his epistemology, he's the one who is the true believer.
The dogmaless dogmatic! It's just precious, isn't it?
vandelay,
Interesting; I just did a search on "atheism" and PZ doesn't show up in the first 12 pages (neither does this blog, but that is to be expected, of course). Maybe he's small potatos, but he does have lots of ilk.
RK,
I think you are right. It never occurred to me that he would think that I'm scared of him. Since I do link all the other PZ articles to him, that aspect didn't gel in my mind. It looked like a cheap version of "nice blog, too bad if something were to happen to it" veiled threat. But it really was just a cheap shot instead.
Hugo,
If PZ had made some legitimate connection regarding believers which applies universally to all believers, then he would be correct. (In fact, he probably thinks that he is correct in his assignments) People who assign themselves to categories share characteristics of that category. For example, people who accept Atheism as their worldview have no common ethic to point to as being inherent of Atheism, because Atheism comes with no attached ethic or moral values. This is universal for all Atheists. Atheists who claim an ethic cannot claim that it is an "Atheist ethic", because there is no "Atheist ethic". Any ethic they might claim is derived from sources external to Atheism, and is not Atheist.
Atheists who claim to be Good Without God cannot claim that Atheism influenced that Goodness, and to be understood, they must define Goodness as it is understood under whatever ethic they have chosen, made up, or stolen. Moreover, they need to explain the source of moral authority for that ethic.
Under Atheism, without any other modifying description, there is no reason for anyone to think that an Atheist has any ethic attached at all, for the simple reason that there is no ethic attached to Atheism.
If your wish is that every person be dealt with individually rather than associated with his self-categorizations, then that wish cannot be fulfilled. A person who claims Goodness, yet subscribes to a worldview that doesn't have an ethic, will always be suspect. Further, a person who subscribes to a worldview with no ethic but claims an external ethic based on insubstantial moral authority will also always be suspect.
This is not my law, nor my doing; it is the consequence of Atheism, a consequence which exists despite Athiest denials on the one hand, and false claims of "Good Without God" on the other hand. It is the rational position of rational people when they encounter a person with non-coherent guiding principles.
You said it! Denying God who is the source of Goodness means there ideas for ethics can not have a foundation. Atheists ideas are moving.
Like building a house apon sand. In a real way Atheists can never be Good. Tommorow Good for Athiests might mean anything.
By removing the part of themselves which makes humans human atheists become no more than beasts. nothing but bodies. Never give them rest.
"Failure to do so is unethical and cowardly"
I wonder which ethical standard he's using there to determine not linking, but still citing source and author, is unethical.
Sounds more like he needs the link backs to drive up page views.
Stan,
If PZ had made some legitimate connection regarding believers which applies universally to all believers, then he would be correct.
What connection can be 'universal'? That is the point.
The only thing which can be truly universal is the fact that believers... believe. Nothing else.
(In fact, he probably thinks that he is correct in his assignments)
Perhaps, he does seem to put all believers together in what you quoted, so he is wrong about that.
Note that I don't know him and never read any of his stuff so I would not know...
People who assign themselves to categories share characteristics of that category.
Yes, but assigning them characteristics that are not implied by the category is wrong. Unless the person who assign themselves to the category tells you something more, you can only guess and ask to see if you were right.
For example, people who accept Atheism as their worldview have no common ethic to point to as being inherent of Atheism, because Atheism comes with no attached ethic or moral values. This is universal for all Atheists.
Who accepts Atheism as their worldview? It does not make any sense.
You are correct though. As it has been said repeatedly here on your blog, there is no common ethic among atheists; there is no common values shared by all Atheists. That is universal.
There are probably several values that are share among all Atheists but they are the same as what is shared among all believers of any religion. No more similarities; no more differences.
Atheists who claim an ethic cannot claim that it is an "Atheist ethic", because there is no "Atheist ethic". Any ethic they might claim is derived from sources external to Atheism, and is not Atheist.
That is not 100% correct. The ethic that Atheists adhere to, whatever it is, can be 'Atheist' in the sense that it does not depend on a belief in gods. However, it is not derived from Atheism at all because Atheism does not mean anything. If somebody claim that they have an ethic derived from Atheism, this does not make sense. I don't understand why you point that out.
Atheists who claim to be Good Without God cannot claim that Atheism influenced that Goodness,...
Exactly! But what's the problem?
Atheists claim that they can be good, under a certain ethic system, without having a belief in gods. The point is NOT that they are good because they don't believe, the point is that they can have a system that is not based on a belief in gods.
It works the other way around too. Several Theists, several believers, have an ethics system which is NOT based on their belief in God. I hope I don't have to explain why? Oh well, why not...
Theists can have an ethical system not based on their belief in gods because their god can be detached from human affairs. If that is the case, then the Theist is no different from the Atheist and will have an ethic systems based on something else, on human life perhaps...
...and to be understood, they must define Goodness as it is understood under whatever ethic they have chosen, made up, or stolen. Moreover, they need to explain the source of moral authority for that ethic.
Exactly; but that is true for both Theists and Atheists as I have just mentioned. A Theist that believes in a god that does not intervene in human affaires cannot possibly use that god as a moral authority. Something else needs to be used.
Under Atheism, without any other modifying description, there is no reason for anyone to think that an Atheist has any ethic attached at all, for the simple reason that there is no ethic attached to Atheism.
Correct; but again, it's the same for Theists. They have to tell you more about themselves before you can know anything about them.
If your wish is that every person be dealt with individually rather than associated with his self-categorizations, then that wish cannot be fulfilled.
Indeed, but there is no need to go to the other extreme as you do, and lump in together ALL atheists when you encounter certain types of atheists.
In other words, you seem to have a lot to say about 'online' Atheist like PZ Meyer but very little to say about 'real-life' Atheists who simply don't care about this whole Atheistic debate online.
A person who claims Goodness, yet subscribes to a worldview that doesn't have an ethic, will always be suspect...
This statement, and what comes after, is wrong since Atheism is not a worldview.
Hugo,
You make the point exactly:
"Yes, but assigning them characteristics that are not implied by the category is wrong. Unless the person who assign themselves to the category tells you something more, you can only guess and ask to see if you were right."
I cannot believe anything except what the category suggests: Atheism suggests no ethic. Reread your sentence.
"There are probably several values that are share among all Atheists but they are the same as what is shared among all believers of any religion. No more similarities; no more differences."
And here you have made a universal statement. You attack me for making universal statements which I can quite well defend, then you make that statement??
"That is not 100% correct. The ethic that Atheists adhere to, whatever it is, can be 'Atheist' in the sense that it does not depend on a belief in gods."
If it is not embodied in Atheism, it is not Atheist. Atheism has no attached ethic or morality. Repeat: Atheism has no attached ethic or morality.
"Theists can have an ethical system not based on their belief in gods because their god can be detached from human affairs. If that is the case, then the Theist is no different from the Atheist and will have an ethic systems based on something else, on human life perhaps..."
You are describing Deism, not Theism. A very poor Tu Quoque is one which is based on false premises...
"Atheists who claim to be Good Without God cannot claim that Atheism influenced that Goodness,...
Exactly! But what's the problem?"
The problem, obviously, is that they do claim that they are "Good Without God". So it is false, intentionally or ignorantly. Either way, is it is false. So they are promoting falseness. That you do not see a problem here is revealing, Hugo.
"Atheists claim that they can be good, under a certain ethic system, without having a belief in gods. The point is NOT that they are good because they don't believe, the point is that they can have a system that is not based on a belief in gods."
That is absurd. They do not claim some mysterious ethic which they choose not to reveal. They make the specific claim that they are ATHEISTS, GOOD WITHOUT GOD.
The claim is for Atheism and only Atheism. There is no other reference to hidden external moral sources: they are the source of their own moral authority.
Making up excuses for them is a failure in the making. It is a waste of time for me to show you what they actually say. Why do you continually misinterpret what they are saying, unless you are intending to mislead?
(continued)
(from above)
"Exactly; but that is true for both Theists and Atheists as I have just mentioned. A Theist that believes in a god that does not intervene in human affaires cannot possibly use that god as a moral authority. Something else needs to be used."
Again you are referring to Deism, and using that to make false statements concerning Theism.
"Correct; but again, it's the same for Theists. They have to tell you more about themselves before you can know anything about them."
Wrong. Claiming Islam tells you where to look for their ideology. Claiming Shiite further refines it.
"Indeed, but there is no need to go to the other extreme as you do, and lump in together ALL atheists when you encounter certain types of atheists."
If you do not wish to be associated with the characteristics of Atheism, then you need to change your self-description. What I am describing is a belief system, not individuals. You object that individuals don't conform to a category; that is false. A person claiming to believe in P can certainly be thought to adhere to Pism, otherwise he is lying about believing in P. It is useless to claim otherwise.
"In other words, you seem to have a lot to say about 'online' Atheist like PZ Meyer but very little to say about 'real-life' Atheists who simply don't care about this whole Atheistic debate online"
That is patently, blatantly and obviously false. Any person who claims to be an Atheist accepts the characteristics of Atheism, unless he goes out of his way to claim otherwise, with detailed specifics. No specifics, no difference from Atheism.
"This statement, and what comes after, is wrong since Atheism is not a worldview.
Hugo, that takes you into yet another dimension. You are here arguing for your worldview, which you deny is a worldview? Your entire approach to logic is based on your need for Atheo-Materialism to be true. Your entire approach to arguing your case here hinges on your worldview that you can be an Atheist yet not responsible for the characteristics that Atheism attributes to you, and that the freedom Atheism gives you cancels out all logical approaches. You likely have a personally derived morality which you think makes you a special case, but a personal morality is merely a personal opinion, since probably no other Atheist will accept your exact opinion on the subject (i.e. no human, including you, has any moral authority, only personal opinion regrading moral subjects).
It is easier to trust a Shiite to behave as a Shiite than it is to trust an Atheist to behave in any predictable manner based on his Atheism.
Post a Comment