Further to “Why atheists can’t get dates (potential dates get wise too soon?), here’s an interesting moment from the implosion of the new atheist movement. Not-so-happy atheist Michael Nugent deplores “The hurtful and harmful smears of PZ Myers, ‘The Happy Atheist’”:
After I criticised PZ Myers and others for smearing the atheist movement and individual atheists, PZ responded by falsely accusing me of defending and providing a haven for rapists, and he has now refused for ten weeks to withdraw and apologise for this defamatory smear.
Hmmm. Myers has been quite the warrior for Darwinism as the creation story of atheism (natural selection acting on random mutations is the key source of increasing information in life forms). But as to his relations with fellow atheists, we further learn:
There are now so many smears that each can hide behind the others, as PZ drags us on a desensitising race to the ethical bottom, many levels below the basics of civil discourse, evidence, fairness, empathy and justice. Ironically, any one of PZ’s smears, if viewed on their own, might stand out as worse than the suffocating tangle of smears that has evolved as he gradually lowers our expectation of decent behaviour.
Short form: = Myers’ general outlook, written down
PZ Myers’ unethical behaviour is harmful to the atheist and skeptic movements, and to the cause of social justice, as well as being hurtful and unjust to the individuals that he smears. It also discredits the American Humanist Association and the IHEU, who gave him a Humanist of the Year award in 2009 and International Humanist Award in 2011, and it disrespects other Humanist awardees who try to promote ethical rather than unethical behaviour.
Of course Nugent is moving too fast here. Who says those groups want to promote “ethical rather than unethical behaviour”? For one thing, whose definition of such behaviour is to be accepted?
That said, all in one place, Nugent provides a convenient list of Myers’ accused online sins and wickedness, which readers may consult if ever needed (strong language and cultural sensitivity caution).
We follow this topic with interest because we have made our last payment on the classic popcorn maker.
Curious that both Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, key Darwin defenders, are people one senses the atheist movement (new and old) would for the most part like to be rid of. For Dawkins, along these lines, see, for example, here.
Could it be that atheists would gladly dump Darwin and his now-distinctly downscale tribe for more plausible naturalist theories on evolution? That is the impression recent news stories leave and we’ll unpack it in more detail in an upcoming feature.
Follow UD News at Twitter!