Carnival of the Godless for Loons

Carnival of the Godless

The latest Carnival of the Godless came out last Monday, and you can find it over at Anonymously Blogging My Heart Out.

One article I thought was amusing in its naivete comes from Paul Fidalgo and his blog DC Secularism Examiner. In his article “Nonbelievers and the etiquette of name-calling”, he reports that he took some flack recently for calling Kirk Cameron a “loon”. Yup. That’s all he said. When being called on it, it put up a quasi-apology:

Point taken. Indeed, I’m pretty weary of the mock-the-Christians genre of atheist blog posts myself (not that I am totally innocent of this).

He needs to spend some time over here and stiffen up his spine.

To be clear, I don’t mock all Christians. I only mock, ridicule, and berate the crazies. Having a Yahweh-belief or a Xenu-belief or even a pasta-belief is completely fine with me. Except for the latter, I see no good reason for such, but I really don’t care how other people choose to waste their neurons (and some of those people have so few neurons to waste!).

Even if the extreme Christians (a.k.a. fundies) merely believed some of the craziest stuff in the world, this blog wouldn’t exist. It’s when they act on those beliefs, to the detriment of the rest of us, that my tolerance ends and the ridicule begins. If you try to push your craziness on the rest of us, then you have opened yourself up to public reactions by the rest of us. Some us us choose to call ‘em like we see ‘em.

The bulk of Fidalgo’s article, however, is devoted to the distinction between mere name calling and actual oppression. It’s a pretty good article, despite how easily he buckled. Check it out.

There are two other articles I’d like to quickly point out. The Whited Sepulchre has some interesting speculation on “How Jesus Evolved”. Wynters Wonderland has a great short article on “The Trouble with Adam and Eve…”.

6 Responses to “Carnival of the Godless for Loons”

  1. Paul Fidalgo Says:

    What you call buckling, I call reconsideration. Or perhaps elaboration. Or explanation. Or exploration. These are the things we enlightened folks are supposed to be capable of. I suppose when accused of something, the most sensible response is to lash back just as hard. Or, conversely, you can “buckle,” and by that I mean use the opportunity to learn something, explain your reasoning, and think differently. But we wouldn’t want that.

  2. Ron Britton Says:

    Or you can assume that anybody who disagrees with you is attacking you and then go to his blog and leave a reactionary comment. But you don’t do that do you? You’re too busy reconsidering.

  3. Paul Fidalgo Says:

    Hey hey now, be fair. You didn’t just disagree with my ideas, you also characterized me personally as soft-of-spine and whatnot. Reads like an “attack” to me.

    But hold on.

    *Reconsiders*

    Yeah, I’m sticking with that.

    My dubious attempt at levity aside, you can see what I mean, yes?

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    It wasn’t meant as an attack, but I suppose it could be misinterpreted that way.

  5. Brian Says:

    I always took it as a sign of weakness whenever someone gets their precious feelings hurt over some harmless name-calling. Every time believers express their outrage over some offense, trivial or otherwise, its the perfect expression of how freaking insecure they really are about what they claim to believe in. Of course, the “fundier” they are, the less secure they will be.

    I have plenty of relatives who are religious, which really doesn’t bother me, as they do not feel the need to impose it on me. They more readily engage in discussions concerning belief, complete with the give-and-take one would expect in a normal conversation, without muttering inanely about my pending damnation. The people Ron had in mind when he conceived of this blog have no such reservations, and would willingly ring in the dark ages all over again to justify their own intellectual and moral cowardice. They deserve as much scorn and ridicule as we can muster, and I don’t care if that means I’ll never change one of their minds. Its not like they’re able to re-examine their beliefs, anyway.

  6. Mel Says:

    Having a Yahweh-belief or a Xenu-belief or even a pasta-belief is completely fine with me. Except for the latter, I see no good reason for such, but I really don’t care how other people choose to waste their neurons (and some of those people have so few neurons to waste!).

    I’m pretty sure the pastafarians (FSM) are established to mock the rest — not as a true belief system. (As with the IPU followers…)