Time To Play….BLAME THE ATHEIST!
9 December 2007 by KA
“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.” – Grossman’s Law
Today’s episode of Scapegoat Theater (yet another holdover anachronism from that most loathsome of tomes, the wholly bibble) features that most casuistic of mental processes – the easy answer to complex social problems.
Our first contestant is Denyse O’Leary – who claims that Social Darwinism motivated the Jokela school shootings.
The best counterpunch is this post from the Panda’s Thumb.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Our next contestant is our old, dear friend, Ken Ham, who blames the Virginia Tech shootings (along with the Columbine killings) on the stripping of God from the science classes.
Since any of these romantic, ‘metaphysical’ quibblings are untestable, unfalsifiable, and lacking in solid evidence, they have no place in a lab, let alone in a classroom. Stick to philosophy courses.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
The third contestant is Dinesh D’Souza, who claims that evolution is responsible for the aforementioned shootings:
“For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way–molecules acting upon molecules.”
Not even going to go into length (or link) on how retarded that statement is.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Fourth up, we actually have the notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (actually, his father) claiming that ‘atheistic beliefs’ cut Jeffrey free from any restraints.
What, pray tell, kept Gilles de Rais from going apeshit crazy? Richard Ramirez was of another variety, but still, religious. “I’ll see you in Disneyland,” was his retort to getting a death sentence.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
Next up, Lee Strobel tells of the debunking of the Miller-Urey experiment that ‘led him into atheism’.
Clearly, Strobel hasn’t a clue as to the differences between evolution and abiogenesis. Also, Talkorigins addresses the Miller-Urey experiment adequately. One might note, that unless Herr Strobel was using a bit of hyperbole, one scientific venture does not an epistemology make.
Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
The list goes on, but I’ll top it off with a real charmer – contestant number six is good old Chuck Colson, who in a tirade of tolerance, made this statement:
“This is a virulent strain of atheism which seeks to destroy our belief system,” Colson said.
Atheism as a disease? How on earth would he eradicate it (if hypothetically this were so)? What happens next, if Chuckles gets his way? Contextually speaking, a disease infers a cure, does it not? Would he enforce some sort of atheist vaccine? Repeal the First Amendment? Of course, Chuckles isn’t a big fan of the SOCAS (it’s uni-directional, dontcha know?).
It’s getting ridiculous. No, wait, it already IS ridiculous. Blaming all of societies ills and woes on one particular source without taking in the complex equations that factor into that laundry list falls under Grossman’s law (cited above). This sounds suspiciously along these lines:
“The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern Country.” – Woodrow Wilson
But I digress…Thbbbt! Wrong answer.
I’d hand out consolation prizes (booby prizes in this case), but rewarding stupidity is enabling it.
If I were a coward, I’d shut up about it, and become one of those ‘casual secularists’ the religious are always prattling about.
But I’m not, so I won’t. I’ll say it loud and proud: I don’t believe. And I have good reasons not to. Multiple good reasons, in fact.
If that makes me a militant atheist, so be it. (And folks wonder why we’re so loud and pissed off. Yeesh, get a clue, willya?)
This is the Apostate, signing off.
9 December 2007, on 10:47 am
Make room for Mitt Romney, who points out in his “don’t look at my magic underwear” speech that we atheists are a barrier to freedom.
9 December 2007, on 10:48 am
I’m amazed they haven’t found a way to blame the Amish shooting on us. Didn’t the killer (who was a gawd botherer) say he was mad at gawd?
So how did atheism cause that? Surely finding any kind of atheist on an Amish farm is like finding a brain cell in a church.
9 December 2007, on 11:25 am
“I’m an atheist.”
“Really?”
“Swear to Gob.”
From M*A*S*H, I think, apropos of nothing.
I really can’t stand that false dichotomy game played by the fundies religiously- to wit the opposite of Gob& Gobbuggery must necessarily be Satan & Satanism. When, of course, we know that the opposite of a fictitious superhero inflated by the collective hot air of delusional belief would be that same balloon released to circle the room crazily before ending up a saliva-dampened scrap of useless rubber lying by the baseboard. Something, meet Nothing. Fantasy, meet Reality. Imaginary Friend, meet Psychiatric Intervention.
Further, one of the flaws of a free society is that not all members of said society are intelligent or conscientious enough to exercise restraint or responsibility in their embracing of said freedoms. The proper response to the excesses is most definitely not to suspend or end those freedoms. Instead, we punish the guilty through our legal system and the information goes to equip our constantly evolving code of law for similar breaches of individual responsibility in the future*. And, no, this brings no comfort to victims of crime or their families but, to paraphrase Dawkins, comfort isn’t something we’re owed. I swear to Gob if I hear about one more piece of unnecessary legislation named in honor of some Darwin Award winner’s dead- by being left in a hot car for hours, offspring, I may snap.
*- of course, this presupposes that our legislators are something more than ventriloquist’s dummies being fisted by the Dobsons of the world.
This may not, however, apply to that much ballyhooed 2nd Amendment- you know the one of the conditional phrasing who’s conditions no longer apply. State National Guards, the U.S. Armed Forces, federal, state, and local law enforcement are “well regulated militias”, thereby freeing the individual citizens of the obligation to bear arms. Yeah, yeah, guns don’t kill people, people do, but guns sure do help them kill more people. I mean, ask Cho how well he would have done with a cavalry sword or an 8″ Wusthof Chef’s Knife- or Kleibold or Harris for that matter, ask the dude in Omaha how it would have gone with a war axe or a ball-peen hammer.
Nevermind. The putative “evil” in this world- the sexual freedoms that scare them to death, the homosexual freedoms that threaten their tenuous grip on masculinity, the reproductive freedoms that just amplify their fear of the beforementioned sexual ones, the academic freedoms that constantly blast away at their precarious foundations, and the relatively recent social freedoms that allow us to mock their affliction loudly and publicly without reprisal all serve to make them behave as cornered, wounded animals desperate to wake up with this all having been a bad dream, desperate to return to some halcyon days that never existed, where xians founded the nation on buy-bull stories and June Cleaver never once allowed the black man down the way to take her anal cherry.
I had a point but I’m not sure if I made it or not because I can’t remember what it was.
Edit: From the Boston Globe…
9 December 2007, on 1:56 pm
I find it curious that they go on and on about all of societies ills, and that we few,(9-14%), of the population are responsible for it. Yet, in the same breath, they claim the great power of their deity in creating the entire universe.
Not much of a deity if 9-14% of the population can’t be stopped by it.
9 December 2007, on 2:23 pm
What are the origins of Grossman’s Law? (Besides pure exasperation, I mean.) It’s beautiful.
9 December 2007, on 2:34 pm
RDZ
I sure hope you’re writing a book of some kind.
Even when you’re not sure you’ve made a point, I sure as hell get a lot of enjoyment out of reading your words!
OT, sort of, I saw a blurb running across the screen of some news show yesterday while my son had control of the remote. Seems Huckabee wants to isolate AIDS patients in a separate living area from the general pop., and he thinks that homosexuality poses a great health risk to the public!
9 December 2007, on 4:22 pm
Todd:
He’s obviously evoking a free pass on his epistemology – so people don’t discuss the wilder nonsenses of moronology.
AUM:
SSSHHH! Don’t give ‘em any ideas.
RDG:
While I agree w/most of your tangent, that 2nd amendment thing is where I differ. I scan it as the citizenry need to be armed in case they need to join up w/a local militia. The events w/Cho & the Finnish kid show that there need to be more stringent control laws, & that maybe gun owners should submit to some psychiatric examinations, maybe once a year or more.
Karl:
“An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures.” – Ingersoll
Kat:
Grossman’s law came up when I googled on easy answers, complex problems. Attribution is difficult: I came across 1 site that claimed it as an H.L Mencken quote. A coupla other sites as a misquote, but no back story.
9 December 2007, on 4:33 pm
I have a troll, elizabeth who just posted a drive-by comment on my personal blog and I checked out her profile link and saw she says she is “swimming against the current of a world that opposes Christian values. I have an insatiable appetite for God’s Word and love to help others glean from it.”
I pointed out to her that according to her own Bible, if her god’s actions are any indication of “Christian values”, and Christians make up such a larger percentage of the population, no wonder the world is so screwed up and evil.
9 December 2007, on 5:20 pm
Breaking News: Ted Haggard’s church just got shot up.
None of the news reports I’ve read give any details about the gunman. So there’s no real evidence now to point to this, but I think it’s acceptable to start saying he was an atheist!
After all, who else but an atheist would want to harm the lovely church that Saint Haggard started? It’s such an upstanding pillar of Christian values and it’s done so much for America.
9 December 2007, on 5:44 pm
Thanks, KA. I was hoping your googling had been more successful than mine. It sounds a bit casual for Mencken. I suppose I’ll have to crack a book.
Oh please, FSM, protect the New Lifers with your noodly appendages. Turn the bullets to meatballs and blood to marinara. Ramen.
9 December 2007, on 6:53 pm
Stardust:
Your troll reminds me of a feature that used to appear regularly in The New Yorker: Block that Metaphor.
I mean, I’m trying to figure out how someone gleans from an appetite. On second thought, I don’t think I care to know.
9 December 2007, on 9:02 pm
I mean, I’m trying to figure out how someone gleans from an appetite. On second thought, I don’t think I care to know.
Old Viking…she sounds like Vampira.
9 December 2007, on 10:54 pm
With those church shootings, I was wondering how long it would take them to blame it on Atheism and Atheists. I give it two days.
9 December 2007, on 11:49 pm
I’ve never heard of Grossman’s Law before. That is such a perfect quote.
10 December 2007, on 12:22 am
Let me preface my usual diatribe (this time it’s about that fuckhead Colson) with a mention of a personal, but also…in general…media annoyance which came to light in the last few days.
[I don't know if Stardust has had this problem...it may be just my area...]
Comcast cable started doing some major maintenance work on their whole system; meaning that: no channel ‘info’ and no ‘On Demand’ has been available for the last 3 days, or so.
I finally called them and complained. In fact I wouldn’t have really known it was an area, system-wide, transmission refurbishing, if I hadn’t called. I suggested to the Comcast Rep., that a simple notice…or screen crawl…you know…like TV channels USED to do, in the “old days”?…
“We’re sorry for the inconvenience; but….yada, yada.” would not only show some kind of basic “Courtesy” ["Heaven forfend!" (w. crossed fingers?)] to subscribers; but also eliminate the annoying necessity of people calling in, and waiting like an idiot for a Rep. to talk with. And Comcast ain’t cheap either, as some of you know! Of course…guess what!…no sign of that.
SURPRISE! (Fucking Corporate assholes!)
After that I was channel surfing a bit, just to see what was on; and started noting and counting the dumb religious channels that were in the numerical line-up; something like three out of the first 40 channels! I lost interest; but was reminded of the fact that there isn’t even ONE Rational-based, NON-believer oriented channel on cable. Plenty of other dumb stuff, however. AARGH!!!
[At least 'my' Comcast Internet makes up for it...Somewhat!...?]
OK…I had earlier today, before all that, caught KA’s mention of Chuck Colson in this Post; and the above cynicism raising bullshit made me think of that Nixon era rat-fuck again.
I’m convinced more and more that there are ALWAYS a percentage of humans who are genetically endowed “Top-Dog” seeking; born to be…”Leader of the Pack”, competitive, lying, conniving, attention seeking, fucktards!
Colson is, to my mind, one of those types.
Here’s a jerk that rose to the top along with Nixon; becomes a convicted jail-time crook. Then, whilst brainstorming in prison, figures that there are a HUGE number of babble believing dumb asses who’ll automatically suck up to that “Born-Again” fucktard asininity. He claims to ‘become’(?) one, and uses the whole stupid scenario to re-manufacture (refurbish?) a phony respect for himself, whilst making a fortune on the usual sychophantic books and prison inmate scamming indoctrination ploy.
Of course, even if he didn’t start out a true believer…he now probably totally believes his own humongous bullshit. And of course, so do a lot of other fucktard dupes who allow him to use the prison system to duplicate his “Born-Again” scheme amongst a whole bunch of other, unfortunate, possibly genetic, sociopaths.
And now…HE and other brains-up-the-ass fucktards have the unmitigated gall to blame rational thinking atheists for the world’s problems. So much for ANY sign of critical thinking ability on his part.
Fuck him…and all the others like him! The whole outrageous bullshit scheme needs to be blantantly exposed…BIG TIME…to the (moronic) general public. Which, perhaps, only a MAJOR MOVIE can accomplish.(?)
And, incidentally, what’s happening with Bill Maher’s film? Huh?…HUH?…
Say what?
With all that’s goin’ in this “rapidly nearing hopeless”, corrupt, cockamamie world…(there’s even another insane shooting today!)…
I’m becoming convinced that when I leave this…”Cesspool World” (ala George Sander’s suicide note)…I’ll, more than likely, die a completely cynical, misanthrope!
I know!…Who’ll give a fuck! And so it goes.
10 December 2007, on 12:56 am
Karen, the Huckster’s fucktarded comments about both the inherent “evil” of homosexuality and the need to quarantine the HIV-positive both occurred back in, like, 1992 on some form he had to fill out prior to a gubernatorial campaign in Arkansas. He’s remained mum on the first and, thus far, tried to mitigate the second by saying that, at the time, it was unknown how the virus spread and, therefore, his suggestion was within accepted guidelines for the treatment of epidemic in this country. Unfortunately for him, by ‘92, it was commonly known that HIV was not spread through casual contact but only through an exchange of bodily fluids, dirty needles, and improperly screened donated blood.
So far as I can tell, there’s no reason whatsoever to think that the sentiment behind his bloviations has changed at all.
KA, given the ideological bent of those who have and will continue to arm themselves, I can disregard my mostly technical quibble with amendment two and stock my own arsenal. I do, however, have a major issue with both the manufacturers of the handguns, their retailers, and, I suppose, some of the supposedly responsible gun owners.
The ownership of a firearm is a tremendously important responsibility. If my gun leaves my possession- except through a police documented robbery, I should be liable for any damage that it does. Likewise, the gun makers and sellers should be liable for any product that manages to hit the street without legitimate registration- through either incompetence or malfeasance. I mean, Jeebus, we regulate the shit out of our cars and they’re not designed to kill.
10 December 2007, on 6:52 am
Related to the W. Wilson quote, who do you think said these things from WWI?
“*****wrote a document entitled “Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops” (Buckley, p. 163) and lists out reasons for the French to keep a close watch on the Black soldiers. He stated that the Black man is an “inferior” being to the White man. The Black man lacks “civic and professional conscience” and is a “constant menace to the American.” It is startling that ***** called the Black man a menace to the American, as if the Black Americans were not really Americans. And this is how the U.S. Military regarded Black units.
***** continued “we must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.” The use of “we” in *****’s words essentially places French and Americans on the same side for being White. ***** also added that “we” must not commend too highly the Black American troops, especially not in front of White American troops. ***** added that an effort must be made to prevent the local population from “spoiling the Negroes.” Startling is his use of the word “Negroes.” Later he adds “Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overwhelming menace to the prestige of the white race.””
Go to the link for the answer.
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/articles/blacksMilitary/BlacksMilitaryWW1.htm
10 December 2007, on 11:40 am
Bernarda,
I couldn’t find an answer there but was it Prescott Bush?if it was a snake, etc. Black Jack Pershing? Shitheel.10 December 2007, on 4:44 pm
Yet more about this Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) I’m supposed to belong to! When did I join, and how exactly does my not killing, raping, stealing, cheating, and lying make this world a worse place?
“People who do not collect stamps are evil and responsible for all the evil in this world! If they don’t become stamp collectors like the rest of us, they must be stamped out!”
^ That’s what I hear in all this theistic hot air…
10 December 2007, on 7:26 pm
Well, apparently the shooter in Colorado actually “hated Christians”, although they haven’t said whether he was an atheist. His family was “very, very religious”, though, so I’m guessing that he really hated his family and may have been warped by his Christian upbringing.
article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/
10 December 2007, on 8:25 pm
…RDG wrote:
State National Guards, the U.S. Armed Forces, federal, state, and local law enforcement are “well regulated militias”
RDG, normally like your posts, but in this you are flat WRONG.
Please read:
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy) (Paperback)
by Stephen P. Halbrook
# Paperback: 275 pages
# Publisher: Independent Institute (March 1, 1994)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0945999380
# ISBN-13: 978-0945999386
# Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.5 inches
# Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces
…If you did, you could no longer assert with a straight face that
State National Guards, the U.S. Armed Forces, federal, state, and local law enforcement are “well regulated militias”;
Instead, you would know that the existing US Armed Forces constitute a STANDING ARMY that would have been an anathema to the Founders. A large standing Army is a relatively new thing in the American experience, mostly from the middle 1950s onward; It (the Military-Industrial Complex) was what Eisenhower was trying to warn people about, and part of what got JFK assassinated in Dallas in 1963.
Also, the modern State National Guards as we know them today were explicitly rejected by the founders, identified by them as “Select Militias” constituting only the most physically fit young males, many otherwise lacking property or gainful employment.
The Founders felt this was still too close to a professional STANDING ARMY, still too much of a threat to Liberty. No, to them everybody needed to turn out regularly for militia drills, not just a lot of rootless young men with a lot of free time and nothing better to do.
No, the Founders understood by “well regulated militia” that it be composed “of the body of the whole people”. The initial drafts of what became the 2nd Amendment spelled that out unambiguously.
Woe that they shortened it for brevity’s sake, but they couldn’t conceive that later Americans would not understand what everyone in their day understood by the phrase “well regulated militia”.
In the Founder’s day, moreover, there was no professional police force per se, so the militia did double duty as a crime fighting posse, too, when needed.
Regardless of the nature of the popular militia, however, that individuals have a natural right of self-defense that includes the keeping and bearing of arms was NEVER in doubt, neither among the Federalists nor Anti-Federalists.
The 2nd Amendment moreover doesn’t “grant” the right to keep and bear Arms, it merely recognizes a pre-existing natural right possessed by all human beings by virtue of being alive and in the world.
Most of the earliest gun control laws were post-Civil War legislation aimed at keeping arms out of the hands of freed black men. Barak Obama unwittingly repeats this racist logic when he says “oh, guns are ok for white folk in the suburbs or out West in Montana, we just want to get all guns out of the inner city” (which disarms the law-abiding only since breaking weapons laws is small potatoes for hard core professional gang bangers, i.e. no deterrent whatsoever).
I have a Texas Concealed Carry permit, and yes, I do carry. Not every day, not everywhere, but I always carry when I’m with my Lady friend out somewhere.
I would hardly relish going up against a maniac wielding a WASR-10, armed only with a Bersa .380 Thunder, but if my choices are fight and maybe die versus be a sitting duck and die for sure, I’d choose to fight.
The anti-gun position has no historical legitimacy, and is moreover consistently bad public policy wherever it is enacted.
Halbrook extends his study all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, through the Medieval period, on up through the present.
The reading is, admittedly, a little dry, but it is a solid, very well argued treatise.
10 December 2007, on 10:27 pm
JJR says: “The 2nd Amendment moreover doesn’t “grant” the right to keep and bear Arms, it merely recognizes a pre-existing natural right possessed by all human beings by virtue of being alive and in the world.”
Really? How does that work? The “natural right” bit. I mean, what exactly in my aliveness and being-in-the-worldness determines my possession of this right? How do I “sense” it? Know it? See, feel, touch (etc.) it? Will I taste it if I lick a gun? Is it like a check list?
1. Q.: Am I “alive”?
[checks pulse]
A.: Alive and kicking!
2. Q.: Am I “in the world”?
[looks around]
A.: I guess I am since there’s “world stuff” all around me!
3. Give me a gun!
[extends both hands out making the "gimme" gesture]
10 December 2007, on 10:50 pm
oops, forgot to ask: does this right vanish when you die? so if grandpa wants to be buried with his sword and musket he’s shit out of luck because his “right” expired when he did. this seems to be the case, or am i missing something?
or, since we’re all into reality around here, how about we admit that this “right” is a man made right. A natural right must precede its subject. So which came first, the right or the gun? Fine, arms, weapon, board with a nail in it, a caveman club, a friggin rock, if you want to go that far. Where’s the proof of this natural right from the origins of humankind?
No. We needed to kill some people so we DECIDED that we need this right, and there’s nothing natural about it. It is actually more reasonable to argue that the necessity to kill some people is a natural right. But, unlike your argument, mine doesn’t have that tidy sense of moral superiority. Be fucking honest and admit you like shooting shit, or pretending to kill shit since really killing shit turns most people’s stomachs, but feeling powerful is nice. Huh, how about that.
11 December 2007, on 1:52 am
untempro – allow me to phrase it this way:
In this day & age of constant violence, & especially in light of the fact that women are targets (let’s face facts: they’re easy targets, some sick fuck will get their jollies off on 1 if given 1/2 a chance), I feel that women should be armed.
Furthermore, define exactly what you mean by ‘rights’. Does it include safety? Freedom from fear, from being a victim?
I for 1 would prefer to live in a world w/o guns, w/o fear, but that is a pipe dream at the very least.
& until this world gets fixed up enough to change the scenario of predator/prey, we’re stuck w/it.
11 December 2007, on 4:12 pm
Krystalline Apostate —– look, i’m not opposed to killing people. In fact I see our planet threatened by over-population and believe that more people need to die so that humanity may survive and prosper in the long run. I am opposed to the hypocrisy involved in claiming that owning guns is a right, a natural right (might as well claim that it’s a divine right). It is not. It is different things at different times: now it’s a desire but it used to be a necessity, it should be a privilege and a responsibility, but it is not a right. We do not have an absolute right to life, we only have a limited right from being killed in certain ways. That is a limited right of protection. But owning a gun does not guarantee one absolute protection, it’s still only a lottery, you might win, you might lose.
How about some other rights? We have a right to food, but we don’t all get to stuff our faces with Beluga caviar and Cristal. We have a right to shelter, but we don’t all get to live in Manderley or Shangri-La. We have a right to clothing, but we don’t all get to wear Armani and Versace.
Or maybe we should. Maybe we should follow the gun model – a gun in every hand – in other areas. In that case, I want my caviar, Cristal, mansion, castle, Armani, Versace! I want mine and everyone should have theirs too! Why not!
16 December 2007, on 4:04 am
[...] Right on the heels of my prior post, more bedlam erupted in the form of a lone shooter in Colorado. Another senseless tragedy. [...]