I'll edit out all the stuff related to other conversations.
The thought has been growing in my mind that we need a group of people who are held, by the atheist community as a whole, of being capable of defending the tenets we hold as universal, and moreover that these people should be organised in such a way that any one of them could say "I'm a member of _____*" and anyone who has participated in the culture wars for any length of time would know precisely what it means, and also (if they find themselves on the opposite side of the argument) s**t themselves in the sure and certain knowledge that they are about to get their rhetorical asses handed to them in paper bags.
*Name to be decided.
**I know some people don't like words like that. Where I come from they're a normal part of conversation.
Now everyone start arguing about it.
Posted by: DK | September 20, 2008 9:22 AMWazza: Sounds cool. The group would have to have some snappy acronym though, like S.H.I.E.L.D. or U.N.C.L.E.
Wazza, An intriguing idea, likely fuel their persecution complex, but I understand the desire. When someone gets in my face with their creation myth, I can be a bit hasty.
Hmmm, a secular humanist/atheist SWAT team, huh? Emergency response squad sort of thing?
Secular Humanist/Atheist Response Integration Alliance?
nah, that acronym might be misinterpreted.
I was thinking more a distributed thing, so that no matter where a discussion takes place, one of us can be there.
OK, here's my thoughts on the matter (concocted in the shower I took between now and the first post)
1. No official dogma. I mean, everything has to be based on evidence and reason, but you can argue for any viewpoint so long as you only use those. Theistic evolutionists would be as welcome as anyone else.
2. Membership is based on an examination by a committee of existing members (except right at the start where the original members would have to be assessed in some other way). Basically you have to argue for your point in your preferred medium, whether it be scholarly journals, newspaper articles, blogs, fora or in-person debate, and have your arguments assessed by members of the organisation to ensure that your arguments were based on reason and evidence and that no logical fallacies were committed.
3. The actual organisation would be more about a level of argument - total ass-kicking with the option of taking names - rather than a particular dogma. This level of argument of course excludes ideas like YEC because they're not based on evidence and reason and are full of logical fallacies, but it would include a wide range of possible interpretations of the facts, so long as they all answer to the criteria already set out.
I think that's enough thinking to do at nearly 2am. Night all.
SHIELD - Science Has Interesting Explanations for Lots of Data ?
SMERSH - Science Makes Exciting Research Seriously Helpful ?
SMERSH - Science Makes Exciting Research Seriously Helpful ?
Tee hee! How about, um, "SPECTRE — Science Privileges Evidence and Careful Theorization for Real Effectiveness"?
SWORD: Science Will Overcome Religious Delusion. Would make for some cool art too.
2 comments:
Did you used to work at McAfee doing tech support?
No. No I did not. I have maintained my sanity for 20 years, and in the interests of continuing to do so I have decided to never, ever work in tech support.
Post a Comment