Holier Than Thou (Part One): If You Can't Take It Don't Dish It Out

I know I'm not alone when it comes to that timeless advice from parents: "If you can't take it don't dish it out."* More accurately, the expression is a demand of recognition. A perspective shift from childish self interest devoid of understood consequence to that of acknowledging the value of another person engaged in the situation and understanding the impact of ones own actions as they parallel the presently aggrieved behaviour of others. In short, my introduction to the concept of my own hypocrisy. We called it being a crybaby and it is a bitter pill. It is also invaluable as a tool for becoming happier, more productive people. For me this awareness shifted the onus from the other person to myself in terms of insuring appropriate conduct both in deed and language respective of what may be warranted by our relation in that particular situation. This is a long way of explaining something we all understand. A human condition we're all familiar with. But it is also human to need an occasional refresher.
When it comes to identifying myself publicly I prefer the term apostate for reasons I will elaborate on later. It would be just as accurate to classify me as an atheist, skeptic, humanist, and free thought advocate. Of these labels, each of which have established communities that often overlap, skepticism is distinct in that it is a methodology rather than an ideology. It is not a perspective, world view, or set of beliefs but an evidence based system of determining whether a claim is supported or not. Skepticism does not include critical reasoning, it IS the critical process.
The issue of hypocrisy is a natural sore spot to be discovered and picked at when skepticism is employed. This is healthy and most often merely informative. Other times it is like stepping on an unseen land mine. When we lift our foot to examine the problem our world explodes, our sense of person is brutally destroyed. On a day like any other, an ordinary walk, a tiny device. Boom. This can be called a paradigm shift and people will subconsciously protect against it due to its potential catastrophic harm. This is our instinct to avoid pain. An effect of cascading collapse within one's perceptions of the world, self, or even the meaning of life and it can lead a person into a great deal of suffering. Depression, dysfunction, perhaps destructive tendencies. It can be like a sudden loss of gravity and the sun going dark. Not that up is down and down is up but that there is no up, there is no down. The laws governing our understanding in life, challenged, can simply dissolve. We ought keep this in mind when entering into discourse regarding another person's pillar concepts bearing the weight of their ideological world view and not underestimate the gravity or the intensity of the defencive response likely to be marshaled to ward off the threatening incursion.
Of course most hypocrisy is merely a desire to be selfish or lazy and acknowledging it won't shatter our world but we all have our deeper held ideas. I have noticed that people who most aggressively attack the person rather than the arguments of those with whom they disagree are often the most belligerent towards the suggestion of opening their own ideology up to skeptical debate. They label and dismiss all opposing opinions as inflexible, ignorant world views, mental pits that trap the opposed mind thereby rendering its owner's notions inferior and fit to be offhandedly discarded. At best worthy of pity, too often deemed barbaric and deserving of intolerant rebuke. After all, why strain an open ear to such nonsense?
Without the process of timely consideration due potentially superior ideas, it becomes necessary to assemble a mass of stock replies and dismissals. These are depended on both as armour and shield, the visage of champion and deflector of all threats to this identity, while simultaneously acting as sword and arrow to target vulnerabilities in the enemy. Stock replies that serve as missiles to stun opposition and savage blade to carve up defenceless non-combatants. Primary instruments not of learning and self transformation but of external social terraforming. 

Some may consider presenting ideologues as being so aggressive and ruthless an unwarranted characterisation. Surely only monsters can stoop to treat their fellow human beings with such cold strategic indifference. What I suggest is that this assumption is actually a false dichotomy. It stems from a remaining lack of sophistication from a time when determining another person's potential threat could be the difference between life and death, therefore creating a primitive lens through which the swiftest response to danger becomes possible: "good" or "evil". Anyone, where time is taken, can discern that the reality is that human beings are more complex than this. With maturity, individually and collectively, we learn to weigh the regularity and intensity of a person's destructive and constructive actions because of an increased capacity to recognise the terrible consequences that can result from simple hasty prejudice and condemnation.
I draw attention to these dynamics not only in hopes that we might reduce our number of unintended conversation meltdowns wherein we carelessly violate other people's inner sanctum but, perhaps more consequentially, to provoke a conscious awareness of our own emotional sacred ground. It should not be underestimated how empowering this comprehension is, once we recognise this innate fear, should we choose not just to consider the proposals of challengers to our perceptual fixtures but to become a tester of ourselves. Decide to become an agent investigating and striking at our own holy securities. When one eliminates the stifling inflexibility of dogma in favour of the fluid changing state then, as Bruce Lee used the image of water to illustrate, we become more agile in adaptability and increase our maximum potential. In the humility of the thought which entertains doubt, as with water which seems weak, we unleash a powerful force of change. It doesn't just break down barriers, over time it will completely alter the landscape. Life is change. Embrace this.
Now here's the rub. There are more people than ever before "dishing it out" thanks to the rise of the Internet. Some can take it right back either for the desire to have free exchange or because they are open to the potential to learn something new from someone else. Either way they do not sit aloft a mighty mount of moral or intellectual superiority casting down their bolts on the inferior masses. Feeling great and mighty, and in terms of influence or notoriety they may for a time be, such an attitude robs this person of meaningful growth and their targets an example of transformative disposition and the human decency with which it might be promoted. 

As Christopher Hitchens would say, your personal experiences don't impress me. Whether your ideology is political, religious, or social, I am not impressed with stock rhetoric or indignant finger pointing. Seize my attention with personal integrity and offer me evidence to digest. I am fallible and strive to be open to change. I embrace apostasy for this reason. Not just toward religion but to be an apostate to all forms of restrictive ideology that I have held or may still hold. To me this is an expression of fearfully breaking free from conceptual chains and embracing free thought.
If you decide to throw a fit because your only wish is to dump on people, well go ahead and cry about it. If you can't take it then stop dishing it the fuck out.
Feel free to take a nap. You've had a big day ;)

Dedicated in memory of PZ Myers' brain.
You are sorely missed. 

The Cult Of Personality: Why Atheism Should Not Embrace Celebrity

Over the last year I have made it my business to become familiar with the various social realms in the atheist movement. During the same period our first serious rift has occurred and the entire atmosphere has been filled with unbelievable hostility and acrimony, leaving many declaring their neutrality or avoiding the topic altogether. I have kept my opinion relatively quiet as I attempted to gain more information about the source of this conflict and to contemplate what to think of the entire affair. The following is my assessment and explains how hoisting personalities aloft has threatened much needed gains via atheist solidarity, instead drawing lines of loyalty and pride.


The Constituent Parts Of The Atheist Community

The greater community has four major areas of focus, all of which overlap, working together. These efforts are usually relatively easy and respectful but the specialisation of each leaning is still significant and, understanding them, go a long way in explaining the conflicts of late.

Skeptics- Those who identify primarily as skeptics are focused on challenging all claims forwarded by any group or individual based on the offered weight of evidence and method of reasoning behind it. "Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere." -wikipedia . I belong to a local skeptics group myself and have a high regard for the value of their work. I'm a mere amateur but learning and using these critical reasoning tools improves the quality of my life and those around me. I have found that those who most identify as skeptics often run the risk of over dependence on specific types of knowledge while being naive about others. Specifically, they tend to be masters of science and technology but deficit in psychology, making them champions in the charge against religious irrationality but alarmingly suseptible to players within the ranks.

Freethinkers- Independent thinkers. Free will, free thought, these atheists do not let anyone tell them what to think or feel. It is particularly difficult to organise freethinkers as many have escaped years of the controlling influence of organised religion. "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The experience of freethought is known as "freethinking," and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers." " -wikipedia . I find that those who most strongly identify as freethinkers are often prone to offer support from behind the scenes, preferring not to be drawn into public debates or expectations of public leadership probably because they no longer feel obligated to answer to anyone. They do step up when necessary and their support to atheism is significant but they can be difficult to gauge on issues of intense disagreement.

Secularists- The identity of the secularist is most heavily that of separation of church and state. The idea that all things public and shared, especially the government in every form, should not be partial to any ideology or group in society. "Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence." -wikipedia. The very freedoms atheists enjoy to descent in our society depends on the important voice raised by secularists who are often drawn from the ranks of historians and legal experts. Unfortunately, the risk running into the "everyone for themselves" attitude seems unusually rampant with this crowd. For many the cause of working together for this separation of influence and power is for the freedom to look out for their own interests without unwarranted limitations or interference.

Humanists- Finally, we have our big hearted humanists. Their major identifying focus is on the human condition. Alleviating suffering, promoting equality, and creating opportunity for improved quality of life. This concern is not based on any notions of gods or spirits but simply the connections we all share as human beings. "Humanism is the body of philosophies and ethical perspectives that emphasise the value of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally place more importance on rational thought than on strict faith. During the Renaissance period in Western Europe humanist movements attempted to demonstrate the benefit of gaining learning from classical, pre-Christian sources, which had previously been frowned upon by the Roman Catholic Church." -wikipedia. The most likely bunch of atheists to be organising and standing on the front line of rallies and protests for a wide variety of human rights will be the humanists. The only down side is the potential of emotion to overwhelm rational discourse at times, that very passion that motivates the incredible deeds of good.

The Big Fall Down

Essentially this entire dispute of self-righteous contention began with a minor event and swelled irrationally from there. Rebecca Watson recounted being approached late one night while alone with a man in an elevator and she found it intimidating and inappropriate. Some questioned why she was making such a big deal about it while others responded by flocking to her side. What followed was several months of useless vitriol spearheaded by a small number of rather well recognised personalities within the atheist community. Waxing loyalty and stoking their egos, this small number of self anointed moral leaders has caused more than mere embarrassment as their efforts to tame and control the conversation and even the vision of the wild community. I have remembered through this turmoil the lesson of expertise being specialised in contrast to our expectation of our figureheads to be masters of all they survey. In so much, I have to say I have lost a great deal of respect for many people who have done so much for atheism in the past. Particularly those who still refuse to admit to any mistakes or wrong doing.
The lesson should not be hate. We need not throw out so many good minds and voices if only we come to grips with the lesson of the cult of personality. It isn't new, nor the destruction flowing from it's mouth. It was the shift in Roman society that paved the way for the Caesars, that stripped countless bodies of proper governance throughout history in favour of a few popular power seekers. Destructive and ultimately futile, the cult of personality will carve out and shatter any unified body in order to feed the hungry vanity of a few. As atheists we are in the unique position of not requiring any such personality worship. Our leadership should ever and only be chosen and maintained by merit of expertise and value of their contribution to any particular action or cause. Acting out? Toss them out. Let them earn their favour back though deeds and words the community can respect.
Fuck Atheism Plus, and the whores it rode in on.

A Few Personalities In Particular

The following are people who have misused the trust afforded them in their public platforms in order to demand attention and adherence to themselves. I advise you to either avoid their influence altogether of, if curious, to be wary of placing any stock in their capability to place the well being of the atheist community ahead of their own desires.

Rebecca Watson- Rebecca is supposed to be a skeptic but has demonstrated an alarming pattern of both accusing and organising to attack opponents without evidence. These are not attacks to be ignored as they include false allegations, slander, pressure brought to exclude speakers from speaking at conventions or at times even attending, and getting opponents fired from their jobs. These egregious acts are wholly unforgivable from a self professed leader in the skeptical movement. Why so many have chosen to loyally support a relatively unaccomplished 32 year old blogger who shows open contempt for men at every single speaking engagement is rather beyond me. She has taken the cause of female equality as her personal armour against all criticism and has spread the unfounded impression of wide spread sexism in the atheist community out into the general public media. In psychological terms, I believe she may be a sociopath.

Matt Dillahunty- Matt was once a lifetime evangelical in training to be a preacher when he came to his realisation that believing without evidence was irrational and dishonest. Since that time he has spent years challenging believers to "give me the evidence" on a call in show The Atheist Experience out of Texas. It is very popular and Matt has done a great deal in terms of educating the public about atheism and equipping atheists to argue their point of view in public or defend it in discussion. Imagine my anguish then as I watched Matt refuse to admit that his friends and their supporters were out of control and violating the very principals he had demanded of religious callers for so long. Attacks and insinuations without the least bit of evidence, anger and vitriol, until Matt exposed the hypocrisy with a public act of trickery. Still unable to choose reason over loyalty, sadly Matt still backs these cultists and in doing so has betrayed his own credo. He even insisted that no evidence was needed for Rebecca's accusation because "this type of thing happens". Goodbye Matt, we will miss you in the skeptic's community.

PZ Myers- Myers is a well respected biologist who also has done a great deal in debunking the Intelligent Design agenda. As with the other offenders Myers has contributed much to the atheist movement in the past but with the outbreak of Atheism Plus began to expose a much less professional, rational side to his personality. I'll just say this man's attitude towards those he disagrees with is less than cordial. He is a nasty tempered brat. Read here Most of these control freak personalities have blogs on Myers' blog site Freethought Blogs, a site created to prevent censorship and promote the expression of independent ideas. Imagine the gall it must have taken Myers to then boot off Thunderf00t, one of the site's bloggers, for expressing his thoughts freely. Disagreeing on their perspectives on feminism immediately launched censorship retaliation. And the name is still Freethought Blogs. The irony that this expulsion was an attempt to promote "diversity" within the larger atheist community is apparently lost on this self important hot head.

Richard Carrier- Carrier is an accomplished history scholar with a PhD. Once champion to many in the atheist movement, Carrier has now become the mad dog, Tom Cruise of the Atheism Plus campaign. This fool exposed to everyone the true attitudes of the god heads with a hasty and overly honest post on his blog. There is no excuse for his aspersions and having revealed his views of fellow freethinkers, he should be ignored entirely in favour of those willing to display respect or at least civility. Here are two quotes. Nuff said:

“Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.”

and

“Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrites, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly demonstrated, is not one of us, and is to be marginalised and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.”
 

 Wow, what a rational skeptic. So freethinking. Read more here from Thunderf00t.


Final Word

Do not trust those who tear down the accomplishments of others, especially if they have none of their own to offer. Be wary of those who claim to have such moral causes that they deserve automatic rights, respect, and submission of any kind. These things are no different than the religious traps of our past and we should all have learnt that respect is earned.

A vibrant counter can be heard here and here from Reap Sow Radio.

This is Mykeru and you should hear what he knows about this whole bunch of intolerants:

Everyone just needs to learn to mind their own damn business up in here.