PZ Myers has pissed off a lot of atheists lately with his post, Why are you an atheist? While it wasn't my favorite post of PZ's, I didn't get pissed off until he posted this entry today: You don't really want to be like Ray Comfort, do you? The following is a comment I wrote on PZ's blog in response to his "Ray Comfort" post:
I didn't care for your post on "poor atheist arguments," but at least I understood that I can disagree with you and still consider you a rational thinker. I thought you would extend the same courtesy. Instead, you defend yourself by using the worst possible ad hominem of all: implying that those who disagree with you are cut from the same cloth as Ray Comfort. I expect better from you. You are, from what I have seen, much better than this.
I mean, seriously. Ray Comfort? I read his entry. He's an idiot. We all agree. Don't try to stick him on the opposing team. That's what Christians do with Hitler, and it's just bad form.
My atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). That's it. There isn't anything "more" to my atheism. My life isn't defined by my atheism. My life is defined by a skeptical mindset, along with a respect for critical thinking and a desire for truth. My atheism is simply one outcome of such a lifestyle. My atheism isn't an "ism" like Buddhism or capitalism.
And if you read the "Idiot of the Week" entry, you should see that he's actually showing you much respect, in spite of the fact that he disagrees with you.
You dropped the ball on this one, professor.
PZ responded to my post, trying to use me as an example:
Perfect example.
My atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). That's it. There isn't anything "more" to my atheism.Followed by this.My life is defined by a skeptical mindset, along with a respect for critical thinking and a desire for truth.All in the same comment.
Apparently, there is something more to your atheism.
Always up for an interesting chat - or a fight (semantics, right?) - I gave this response:
Perhaps there is a miscommunication between us. How I live my life - i.e., "defined by a skeptical mindset, along with a respect for critical thinking and a desire for truth" - has nothing to do with my atheism. What I mean is, I don't live my life according to any "tenets of atheism." There are none. The only thing my lifestyle has to do with my atheism is that not having a belief in god(s) is where my skeptical mindset, truth-seeking and attempts to think critically have led me.
I don't - I can't - define atheism as anything more than "lack of belief in god(s)." One can be an atheist and not a truth seeker, or a critical thinker, or a skeptic. I'd guess most teenage atheists are so because they want to rebel against something. Similarly (and you may disagree, but then I'd think you're wrong), someone can be a truth seeker and critical thinker and not be an atheist. I was a Christian once, and I consider myself to have been such a thinker. Some may say that's why I'm no longer a Christian, but my point still stands.
Where have I gone wrong in my thinking, professor?
As of this writing PZ hasn't replied. If he does, I'll be sure to mention it here. He said nothing about his Ray Comfort comment, and that's the main reason why I replied in the first place. I don't usually comment on Pharyngula.
I saw a few other quality responses, including this one by PaulMurray:
Dictionary atheism is a reaction against theists who go "you are an athiest, therefore you also ..."
The reply is "No, if all you know about someone is that they are an atheist, then all you know about them is that they do not have a belief in God(s)."
Really - dictionary atheists are making exactly the same point that PZ is making: that there's a spectrum of things that people who are atheist believe, that the word itself is - as he puts it - insufficient.
Beats me where the disagreement is.
Perhaps PZ and I agree on this one point. That would be nice, if I actually cared.
All that stuff I said about Hitler applies to Ray Comfort too, PZ.
Dead-Logic.com
UPDATE 2/6/11 @ 11:03 PM: I've been reading the responses to this "Ray Comfort" post, including posts by PZ. The general consensus of the "pro-PZ" camp is that: 1) those who disagree with PZ are just wrong, or 2) those who disagree with PZ are actually in agreement with PZ, they just don't realize it.
My original response was mostly concerned with PZ's ridiculous Ray Comfort remark. I followed it with my own take on the "definition of atheism" issue. If PZ agrees with what I wrote, then great. If he doesn't, then that's cool too. If everyone always agreed on everything then we'd have a lot of boring conversations - or very few conversations.
Hell, am I a "dictionary atheist"? I don't even know any more, and I really don't give a damn. Like I said, my motivation to post anything at all on Pharyngula was the comparison PZ made to Ray Comfort. PZ could have handled this so much more effectively, and he decided to evoke the name of the village idiot of Christian apologetics instead.
