The Snarky Humanist

I recently posted about a "typo" in the Guardian that referred to Richard Dawkins as "Richard Dorkins". While I did not receive a response from my inquiry, it seems the folks at the Guardian realized that they couldn't get away with their obvious veiled hatred towards Dawkins. They already fixed it. But we'll never forget this dark day in the atheist community. The day that started one of the most intense "gates" ever: Dorkinsgate Edited to add: The Daily Mail managed to cover this same story without calling Dawkins a dork.

The following article from the UK's Guardian came up in my news feed a few minutes ago: Scientists demand tougher guidelines on teaching of creationism in schools My eyes were immediately drawn to the photo and the caption beneath: Accidental typo or intentional insult? I emailed the Guardian the following: Hello, I'm assuming the error in the caption under the photo of Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins was completely unintentional, and the spelling of will soon be corrected to say "Dawkins" instead of "Dorkins". http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools I will be sure to update everyone on the developments of this Very Serious Story.

I love a good collection of data representing the general mood of the U.S. population on various issues as much as the next person, and I think it's interesting how surprised I tend to be when the topic involves (or includes) atheism. Back in June, the Gallup folks released results of a poll that asked Americans whether they would be willing to vote for candidates belonging to various demographics. Here are the results: Source Ouch. The good news is that nearly half of those polled would be willing to vote for me should I decide to run for president. The bad news that we come in dead last, behind gays, Mormons, and Muslims. This is despite the fact that the number of atheists in this country continues to grow, and in 2008, 1,621,000 people identified themselves as being atheist (Source) . Granted, this represents only .7% of the population, but another 11,815,000 people refused to answer the questions, so I'm betting some of those people are heathens as well. The U.S. is pre...

Saw this on Friendly Atheist : 1. A public middle school allowed their students to start a Gay Straight Alliance group (GSA). 2. A public middle school allowed the GSA to make a video. 3. Teachers and administrators of a public middle school participated in the video. 4. I wish I lived in Portland.

I can't believe I'm making another Elevatorgate post, but this simply can't be ignored. In my last blog about it, I briefly touched on Richard Dawkins being a bit of an idiot in response to Rebecca's vlog. She fired back and said she'd never purchase his books again. Then there was radio silence. This doesn't seem like the kind of knock-down drag out fight that these folks are suggesting. Nor is the analogy to child abuse AT ALL APPROPRIATE. What really takes the cake is that it appears they're not allowing people to comment on this post. I attempted (and was surprised that no one else had yet commented (firsties!), but my comment seems to be stuck in moderation-limbo. My comment was: "Two leading skeptics arguing on the internet is not at all comparable to child abuse. Quite frankly, the comparison is rather offensive to both abused children and members of the secular community. Rebecca and Richard fighting does not effect me. I am a grown up...

So JT Eberhard has agreed to participate in an online debate with Issac Fleming about the existence of God. And JT has posted Issac's opening dialogue. Now, I don't think I've heard of Fleming before, but I still find myself deeply disappointed by the quality of the arguments he has brought to the table. Briefly, he lays out (and provides what he feels, I assume, are sufficient justifications for) the following points: Things exist, therefore God. Life has meaning, therefore God. Things can be objectively moral or immoral, therefore God. Life after death, therefore God. Truth can be objectively determined, therefore God. Zombie Jesus, therefore God. So. Points 2, 4, 5, 6 really need no comment. But I'll deal with each briefly. 2 & 4: Citations please. Show me how either of those is anything other than wishful thinking. This is simply the Argument from Desire, or Argument from I Want It To Be That Way Cause I Don't Like The Alternative. 3: Others have dealt wit...

Dan sent me a bunch of links about Elevatorgate because previously I was only vaguely aware of it, and I wanted to know more. That was a mistake. I did not work my way through all of the blogs, comments (seriously, Richard Dawkins?), and Youtube videos because quite frankly I have more enlightening things to read. I do think it's fascinating when something so seemingly mild in context transitions into a viral all out war between feminists and people-who-call-themselves-feminists-but-really-aren't-because-they-clearly-don't-get-it. Here is my extremely short opinion of Rebecca Watson's experience on the elevator: It's never appropriate to invite a stranger to your hotel room. But he just wanted to talk! It's never appropriate to invite a stranger to your hotel room. But he told her not to take it the wrong way! It's never appropriate to invite a stranger to your hotel room. But we shouldn't assume that he's a creep and.. It's never appropriate to...

Because it's weird, and I don't buy it. Although apparently it is the fourth and final religion-related "attitude" change that has occurred since 9/11. Four ways 9/11 changed America's attitude toward religion Criticism of all religion, not just fanatical cults, was no longer taboo after 9/11, says Daniel Dennett, a philosophy professor with Tufts University in Massachusetts. "Atheist-bashing is now, like gay-bashing, no longer an activity that can be indulged in with impunity by politicians or commentators," Dennett says. Admittedly, I wasn't paying much attention to atheism back in 2001, but in my experience it is still "taboo" to criticize religion. Atheists are still being bashed, and while it's true that we're yelling back louder than we used to, I don't think it's 9/11 that made this possible. All it takes is a few loudmouths who refuse to back down to start a movement. We (atheists) have many loudmou...

Can Teachers Criticize Creationism in Class? Educator James Corbett was recently sued by a former student because he labeled creationism as being "superstitious nonsense". Obviously the student is a believer of creationism and this statement offended him, so he sued...and won. This comment was deemed unconstitutional for some fucking reason. Thankfully, the decision was later overturned, but...WTF theists?? I actually agree that the comment was a bit offensive and dismissive, HOWEVER , we have no idea what the context was. Was it a science class? Did the young creationist interrupt a class about evolution and argue that creationism is a valid scientific theory? Or did Mr. Corbett begin class by saying "If you believe in creationism, you're an idiot because it's superstitious nonsense"? Regardless of the context, the farthest this ever should have gone is a reprimand by the school's administration. Of course, since American Christians ...