Archive

Archive for the ‘General Bitches and Gripes’ Category

The Four Reply Rule

March 10, 2014 4 comments

by Noah Lugeons

I started this blog several years ago and expected to get a lot of religious trolls, but I didn’t.  Of course, for the first couple years it was up I was hardly posting and nobody was reading it, so I guess that goes a long way toward explaining it.

I started the podcast over a year ago and expected to get a lot of religious trolls, but I didn’t.  Of course, the podcast audience is so small that you’d really have to be looking for atheist shows to find it, so it’s no surprise that the religious folks are still unaware of it.

I got active on Facebook and Twitter shortly after starting the show and expected to get a lot of religious trolls, but I didn’t.  I suppose there are far too many prominent atheists on social media for any of the trolls to take time out to fuck with me.

I started putting the diatribes on YouTube to expand our audience and expected to get a lot of religious trolls.  And it’s YouTube so of fucking course I did.  YouTube is troll crack so of course, if they were going to show up anywhere, it would be there.

As the show grows, the troll activity has slowly grown on all our media and I’m sure it will continue to do so.  And while I still see trolling as a badge of accomplishment, it gets tiresome pretty quickly.  Because I can’t help but respond.  I can out-troll most trolls and I enjoy arguing.  Even arguing with an idiot can be good mental exercise, as you have to find ways of dumbing down what you’re saying and explaining why the thing they just said is horseshit.

But, as we all learn at one point of the other, there is no time limit in mom’s basement.  Feeding trolls is an unending cycle if you allow it to be and once they’ve stuck their fingers deep enough into their ears there’s no real point in responding.  Well… I suppose there’s virtually never a “point” in responding, but at a certain point is also stops being fun.

So to keep myself from falling into that infinite loop, I have a four-reply rule.  It’s something I implemented after reading back over pages of stupid arguments I had over an entry on this blog.  I realized that with the same effort I could have written a whole extra episode rather than devoting the time to one slobbering jackass.

I should note that I’ve been using the term “troll” pretty liberally.  I’m actually referring to damn near anybody who leaves a comment that disagrees with me and then fails to articulate any rational argument against my point.  If somebody leaves “FUC!K YOYU ASSHOEL!!!!!!!!!” I probably won’t respond at all, but if somebody says, “You’re wrong and fuck you, asshole,” I probably will.

And if the conversation or the point of contention is interesting and the discussion seems to be going somewhere, I’m happy to keep a thread open for days.  But if I discover that it’s a pointless “No I’m right!” dick waving contest, I have to check out.  My dick waving propensity makes that difficult to do, of course.  Hence, the four reply rule.

It usually takes a little back and forth to determine whether somebody is engaging in a debate or an argument, but within four replies it’s clear.  And if somebody is making no attempt to refute my point or defend the flaws I’ve identified in their own within four replies, I feel comfortable cutting the conversation short.

My ego hates to do that.  My ego shouts “somebody’s wrong on the internet!” and tries to force me back into the void, but my more rational mind usually wins out and explains to my ego that just because this person said something last doesn’t mean we lost.  It tells my ego to calm down, smoke a bowl and remember that the only real way to lose an argument with a troll is to spend time arguing with a troll.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes

On iTunes Reviews

February 7, 2014 4 comments

by Noah Lugeons

(Warning: Excessive naval-gazing ahead)

Up to this point, reviewers on iTunes have been quite kind to us.  I’d love to fan the flames of my own arrogance with this fact, but in truth it tends to be the case that the vast majority of the reviews for a new podcast are overwhelmingly positive.  This probably has something to do with the fact that most of the people who would take the time to search out a new podcast would be (a) predisposed to like podcasts in the genre and (b) willing to overlook some of the flaws that newer podcast producers are working through.

I have to admit, I check iTunes daily and at least once a week I go international and check our reviews in the rest of the English speaking world as well.  I suppose every podcaster is compelled by a need for approval on some level so this is probably largely the norm… or at least, I hope it is.

iTunes gives reviewers the option of leaving a rating (1-5 stars) and writing a review.  You can rate without taking the time to add a written review and about 33% of the people that have rated us have chosen that option.  Almost all of our negative ratings have come sans-review.  There was one one-star review that dismissed Heath and I as “mean”; which I’ll admit to.  A three-star review asked that I get rid of the crappy music and another three-star review faulted us for not being less like us.

But yesterday we got what I consider to be our first honest negative review.  On a five point scale you can’t exactly call a three star review negative and I can’t take the “you guys are mean!” review too seriously, but the one I read yesterday was a two-star review that didn’t seem ideologically motivated:

It seems like he’s trying too hard to rile religious folks up.  There’s too many strong man arguments and no variety of opinion… not exactly inspiring intellectual conversation or provoking real convincing thoughts.  It’s really all for entertainment value and I can easily say the fans are just finding more broken records to reinforce their beliefs.  I mean, the quality of the audio and everything was really good.  Content on the other hand..?  It’s a lot of fool’s humor and pathetic stories of other fools to mock.  Suit yourself if you like.

Obviously there are a few things there to unpack.  He’s free to say whatever he wants, obviously, but I think it’s a bit of a low blow to go after the fans of the show (he’s talking about you!).  The notion that I’m “trying too hard to rile religious people up” is kind of stupid, as it would require religious people to be listening to our show (I’m guessing none do).  I could also pick on him for saying “strong man arguments” but I’m too highbrow for that.

But my main issue with this review (and similar feedback I’ve gotten via email) is that the gist of the review is: “I want this to be a different show.”

I don’t mind that he doesn’t find our brand of humor funny.  Obviously it’s not for everyone.  I don’t mind that he doesn’t find the thoughts and ideas we express compelling… most of them aren’t meant to be.  But the unspoken premise of this review is that an atheist show is supposed to be a certain way.  It’s supposed to include diverse opinion, thought provoking discussions, weaker man arguments (okay, I was bullshitting about the highbrow bit).  And I’d be happy to point him to a few shows that are more likely to suit him.  But I’m not persuaded by the “this shouldn’t be this!” argument.

And yes, I’m probably pissier than the review warrants.  It’s good that the people who don’t like the show take the time to rate it so that people won’t start getting the impression that it’s beloved by all.  I’m glad that he took the time to actually tell me what he didn’t like and why.  And I’m glad he was so complimentary about the sound quality because, in my opinion, that’s the worst thing about the show.  But I’d feel better about it if he hadn’t felt the need to say it in such a “I’m better than people who listen to this show” way.  There’s too damn much of that in the atheist movement.  We’re often drowning one another out by criticizing the methods and ignoring the message.

Incidentally, if you’d care to hear me opine a bit more on that exact subject, don’t miss my appearance on Atheistically Speaking next Thursday, where David, Thomas and I discuss this exact point in depth.

And forgive me for all the caterwauling.  I’m halfway through the Phish Food and I’m already feeling better.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes

Here’s Hoping Heaven Has a Leash Law

January 28, 2014 3 comments

by Noah Lugeons

For fuck’s sake, there’s something called the Christian Veterinary Mission.

I know this because among the many awesome and generous people who listen to the show is a veterinarian.  She was recently at a conference and sent along a little care package full of goodies she’d picked up there for our cats.  Along with some new toys, some flea medicine, and a bounty of cool shwag were a few pamphlets from the Christian Veterinary Mission.

The first one shows a little pug with his head cocked in that adorable “curious puppy” way and above him is the burning question “Will I See My Pet In Heaven?” and believe it or not, it gets stupider from there.  When you open it up, you find a dodgy answer to that question and boy do they cover their bases.  They offer up three contradictory possibilities, inadvertently highlighting the stupidity of asking questions for which no data could possibly be collected, and then they offer an unrelated bible verse.

So why create an entire pamphlet if your ultimate answer to the question you, yourself posed is “Fucked if we know?”  It turns out it was all a trick.  The rest of the pamphlet takes the “Who gives a shit about Fido, what makes you so sure you’re going to heaven?” tack.

It’s essentially a chick tract in pug’s clothing, but it serves as a perfect reminder that those motherfuckers are everywhere.  Think about it; there’s an entire ministry that exists for the sole purpose of evangelizing to veterinarians at conferences.  They sponsor veterinary missions where you can go out and medicate goats in third world countries for Jesus.  Because who needs the word of god more than a third world villager who’s injuring his goat?

Somewhere out there is an enterprising Christian trying to figure out the best way to proselytize to Norwegian, bipolar semi-professional left-handed bowlers.  And when she figures it out, she’ll have financial backing.  It’s depressing to see how far-reaching the opponents of reason are, but it’s encouraging to see how desperate they are.  After all, there was a time when they could sell Jesus without resorting to cute pugs with cocked heads.  Pretty soon they’ll have their own computer animated gecko.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , ,

Our Wrongness Proves Us Right

January 27, 2014 5 comments

by Noah Lugeons

There was an ancient tablet and it referred to a boat, so I suppose it was inevitable that the douche-shooting Christians would claim it as proof of Noah’s Ark.  You probably saw the story by now, but in case you haven’t it goes like this: Ancient Mesopotamian tablet is found and upon translating the cuneiform researchers discovered a portion of a story very similar to the story of Noah’s Ark, with the notable exception that this tablet specifies the boat as being round.

Despite the explicit addendum that this tablet provides absolutely no evidence that such an ark existed, the bulk of the headlines about the piece read the exact opposite.  Stories like “Was Noah’s Ark Round?” are cropping up all over the place and the more credulous ass-tards like Bryan Fischer are actually referring to it as “scientific proof”, betraying a lack of understanding of both of the words in those quotes.

And while the newly uncovered tablet says nothing at all about the shape of “Noah’s Ark”, it does prove just how circular the reasoning of Christian fundamentalist are.  They’re able to take what amounts to proof that their story is false and hold it up as evidence.  A story about their legend that clearly predates their version and demonstrates that they got key details wrong should be an embarrassment.  It should be enough to close the topic for good.  In fact, we probably should have shut down debate on that topic the first time we found indisputable evidence that the Jews plagiarized this story from the Sumerians.

It reminds me of the eleventh time I saw a headline about some idiot finding a dusty piece of petrified wood on a mountain and claiming he discovered the legendary ark.  You would think after two people discovered it, additional discoveries of the ark (taking place on different mountains) would turn into evidence against the historicity of the story, but the motivated reasoning of fundamentalists is easy to underestimate.

Every time I see one of these ridiculous claims make the news cycle I almost feel sorry for the more rational blend of Christianity.  They have to realize how stupid this looks to the non-Christian world.  It’s as though every time an old house was discovered in the woods it was presented as evidence for the historical Hansel and Gretel.  And yet somehow vast swaths of Christianity obliging line up to provide rationalists with ammunition every time the words boat and ancient appear in the same article.

As atheists, we should remember to thank them more often.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , ,

Italian Nun Fucks Man

January 17, 2014 6 comments

by Noah Lugeons

Why the hell is this news?  I saw it on HuffPo this evening and by 9 o’clock I was seeing it on half a dozen social media sites and forums.  A nun in Italy had a baby.  She was quoted as saying, “I had no idea I was pregnant” and I, for one, believe her.  She’d have had an abortion if she knew.

It’s a ridiculous concession to religion to pretend that this is newsworthy.  A nun has a baby on the other side of the Atlantic and it’s headline news in America?  As though this is some unheard of circumstance that defies explanation?  She’s a 31 year old woman who fucked a dude.  Probably more than one.  And almost certainly more than once.  In fact, she lives in Italy and she named the baby after the Pope.  I’m not saying he’s her baby’s daddy, or anything, but he has expressed a recent interest in tits.

So yeah, she had a kid.  I don’t need to tell you how that works.

 

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: ,

An Atheist Behind Enemy Lines

December 30, 2013 15 comments

by Noah Lugeons

It’s a long story, but my wife and I bid a fond farewell to NYC this week and moved south.  Our destination?  The duodenum of the bible belt; south Georgia.

I can hear the incredulous echo of “Why!?” already, so I should note that Lucinda’s family lives there, I grew up there, we both have a number of friends there and it costs about as much to rent a house there as it costs to park a car for a month in the Big Apple.  So when I got laid off and the most expensive city in the US was no longer a viable option, Georgia was the first option we considered.  And as much as there is to hate about this part of the country, I was wearing shorts and short-sleeves this afternoon.

But I’m also a firm believer that if we want to make progress as a movement, we’re going to need vocal atheists in every part of the nation.  The disturbing national trend of voluntary relocation for the purposes of political hegemony is certainly a factor in our gridlocked government.  And while I would never recommend that anybody move to or even visit South Georgia for any reason whatsoever, I also wouldn’t recommend that anyone shy away from a place they’d like to be just because the religiots got there first.

And sure, there’ll be issues.  My new landlord let us know that if there was an emergency we could call him on Sundays, but otherwise it’s the lord’s day.  I’ve already been asked three times if my wife and I had chosen a church yet (we’ve been here almost two days).  The guy who came to hook up our cable was really friendly until he saw Lucinda’s Bible (and the Atheist sticker on it).  Not to mention the witless church signs packed so densely they could be knocked over like dominoes.  And the bumper stickers.  And the confederate flags…

But I don’t see any of this as a negative.  After 46 diatribes in a row, I was starting to worry that I’d run out of shit to be pissed about.  Now I’m fairly certain that I’ll be good through episode 348 at least.

 

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes

Being the Atheist Guy

July 22, 2013 5 comments

by Noah Lugeons

Before I started this podcast, I wasn’t very public about my atheism.  I’d tell anyone interested enough to ask that I was an atheist and if they wanted to know why I would tell them.  But I never invited the conversation.  I’d been told so many times that it was rude to “attack” someone’s faith that I started to believe it.

And now that I’m “the atheist guy”, I really wish I’d flushed that nonsense along time ago.

Again, I’ve been an “out” atheist for years.  It wouldn’t be fair to say that I was “quiet” about it, as I’ve always been quick to point out the bullshit in a religious claim and I’ve never given much of a damn about whether the person I was pointing it out to was religious.  But I never allowed it to be a defining part of my personality.  I’d never been an activist.

But now I am.  Now everyone I work with or regularly interact with knows that I’m a vocal atheist and many of them see this as my defining characteristic.  I’d never wanted this before because I feared it would land me in one pointless debate after another.  But it turns out that that fear was entirely unfounded.  Much of this is geographic, of course.  Living as an open atheist in NYC is quite a bit different than being the atheist guy in Vinegar Bend, Alabama, but even with New York’s notoriously diverse religious population I worried about the constant barrage of well-meaning devotees trying to save me from the bad parts of the afterlife.

And yes, there’s been some of that.  I have an acquaintance that seems obsessed with turning me “back to Jesus” (her phrase, mind you, as I’ve never been a Christian).  She’s a nice person, she means well and I put up with it with a smile.  I rib her a bit for it and I tell her I know she means well and I avoid her every chance I get.  To be honest, she’s one of those people everyone kind of tries to avoid.

But those interactions are a trifling minority compared to the people who have come to me with genuine curiosity.  Many of these people have known me for years without knowing that I was an atheist.  And contrary to the fear that I would lose some of their respect, it turns out that by and large I’ve given them more respect for atheism.  They know that I’m a moral, friendly, intelligent, well-mannered, polite, hard-working (and occasionally self-aggrandizing) guy and knowing that I’m a nonbeliever has helped chip away at their stereotype of the angry, unhappy atheist.

Of course, this shouldn’t be a revelation to me.  It’s been one of the dominant thrusts of the atheist movement for the last several years.  Be vocal, counter the stigma by being openly atheist, give them an example of an atheist that isn’t frothing at the mouth.  In fact, I feel like I’m one of the last people to the party on this one.

But I’m not the last person.

So I’m writing this to everyone who is still on the fence about “coming out”, or, more appropriately, being vocal about your atheism.  I was guilty of overestimating the negative reaction and underestimating the positive reaction.  I think most of the people who are vacillating are probably guilty of the same.  Sure, some people have to be careful, as they risk alienating family, losing friends, losing social and financial support, damaging their marriage, losing their job… but that’s all the more reason the rest of us should be as vocal as we can be.  It’s up to those of us who can change the image of atheism to do so for the sake of all those who stand to lose so much.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , , ,

Embracing the Narrative

July 8, 2013 1 comment

by Noah Lugeons

As many of you know, I recently appeared on the “Thank God I’m Atheist” podcast to speak for the “acerbic” brand of atheism.  The debate was sparked over American Atheists recent dedication of America’s first monument to secularism in the form of a quote-laden bench.  Frank and Dan (the hosts of TGIA) were two of the many atheists who saw AA’s approach as too caustic, too reactionary, too antagonistic.  They wondered why American Atheists hadn’t used the opportunity to present a positive message rather than a chiseled “fuck you”.

Now, when I characterize the debate like this, I do a disservice to American Atheists, as the monument is certainly more than a “fuck you”.  It contains a number of quotes from our founding fathers that demonstrate how important the separation of church and state was too them and how little they cared for organized religion.  But it also includes a list of biblical punishment prescriptions for breaking the ten commandments, which can only be seen as a retaliatory strike to the ten commandments structure that prompted the bench’s existence in the first place.

So Frank and Dan wondered why we were so willing to play the villain?  Why were we so eager to be exactly the people that the Christians said we would be?  If we were going to send a message with the monument, why not send a message like “we all benefit from the separation of church and state” rather than a message like “your holy book is stupid”?  Why play in to “us versus them” narrative?  And, if we were going to do that, why do so in a way that reinforces the “Atheists are callous jerks” stereotype.

I understood their points, but I felt like there were a few major elements missing from their calculus so I had a little email exchange with Dan and before long it led to an invitation to discuss the issue further on their show.  The interview went really well and while I think everyone left with the opinion they came with, I think all three of us also left with a better understanding and more respect for the other side.  And barring the swaying of positions, this is probably the best outcome one could hope for from a conversation.

I think that Dan made some excellent points in defense of soft atheism, particularly in combating the notion that soft atheism is “non-combative” and I think Frank made some excellent points about what message we sent to the vast middle; the wavering believer, the uncommitted agnostic.  In all, I think they did a great job making a case for their side; not just for the utility of soft atheism, but against the utility of hard atheism.

But I also think ol’ Noah made a few good points there, too.  And I think the most important one came toward the end.  We were talking about how big a job American Atheists has as the nations premier atheist organization.  How does one provide a single voice for such an intellectually diverse group?  We were all lamenting the lack of another prominent national group that advocates atheism with an approach that is antipodal to AA.

But, as I pointed out on the show, there are no shortage of groups offering to be that voice.  Sure, they’re not as well funded as American Atheists, but there are plenty of individuals and organizations that represent atheism in a far more ecumenical style and the media isn’t talking to them.  Bill O’Reilly isn’t inviting the warm, fuzzy atheist on his show, he’s inviting the rabid, angry, argumentative villain on.

But, of course, the debate rages on.  Our discussion aired on their show last Saturday and yesterday I had a chance to listen to the follow up episode where, to no surprise, they discussed some feedback they got from their listeners regarding the interview.  Among them were several voices raised in objection to the approach and while several of them were well-reasoned, none of them (and no answer I’ve heard so far) addressed that core objection: If an atheist is nice in the woods and there’s nobody around to hear him, does it make a difference?

The problem is that we still have to rely on the media to get our message out.  Sure, there are blogs and podcasts and media sources that make the mainstream media superfluous, but the only people using those resources are the people already firmly entrenched in our camp.  If we want to be heard, we still need CNN and the Washington Post and, as much as I hate to say it, Fox News.  So how do we get them?

To hear the copacetic voices lay it out, we just be really, really nice so that whenever you see a quote from an atheist group, they’re showing up with an olive branch in hand, ready to explain how their position benefits not only the non-believer, but the vast majority of the nation.  Separation of church and state, for example, tends to benefit everybody who isn’t part of the largest religion in the country and in America, that’s most of us.  They prefer an approach where we take out the “Fuck you” and add a “Thank you” and deflate this stereotype of the negative, angry, arrogant atheist.  I think of this approach when people say (as they do with increasing frequency) “Atheism can’t just be against something, it has to be for something, too.”

And, in a storybook kind of way, this all sounds good.  The problem is that is doesn’t work.  And that’s not just my opinion, it’s been proven for decades.  Atheists didn’t just show up in this country when David Silverman took over as President of American Atheists.  We didn’t appear when Sam Harris called us into existence in 2001.  We’ve been here the whole time.  And our public face, by and large, has been this above-the-fray, all-inclusive, what’s-good-for-the-goose persona.  And yet, somehow, the atheist voice was never represented on the news.  The atheist rebuttal was never given even a cursory glance in the story.  The atheists were ecumenical and invisible.

But along comes somebody willing to play the villain and the media absorbs it like a sponge.  Along comes an atheist willing to be the person that Christians fear and- presto -he’s all over the media.  He’s spreading the atheist message on the most conservative political outlet outside of talk radio.  He’s putting up monuments where all the major media outlets can’t help but go and when they get there, they can’t help but notice the circus atmosphere that these fundamentalist windbags have concocted around it.  After all, you can’t ignore a voice that offends you.

And still, despite the overwhelming success of the Silverman approach, there are plenty in this movement who would have us reign in that acerbic voice.  They’d have us throw a wet blanket over the caustic approach that has come to characterize Silverman’s approach.  They pretend that now that the media has started talking about us, they’ll keep talking about us no matter what.  They pretend that we’re somehow too big to ignore.

But look at the recent bullshit Time editorial that went out of it’s way to belittle the charitability of secularists even to the point of blatantly lying.  Consider the recent nonsensical story on CNN’s website about Christians being happier than atheists on Twitter.  Consider the narrative.  

The major media is still in the business of telling stories and they have the narratives that they’re trying to sell.  If you want in, you’ve got to fit into your niche in the narrative.  They can’t have violent gays or thoughtful scientologists or nice atheists because that doesn’t fit the narrative.  That’s not the story they’re telling.

People often say of David Silverman’s leadership “He’s great at getting press, but I hate the message he sends when he does”… as though we can somehow separate those two things.  As though the caustic nature of his approach is in no way responsible for the amount of press he gets.  As though we’d never tried the olive branch approach before.

Of course, to be fair, I should concede that the number of non-believers is a hell of a lot higher than it was before and it’s possible that the mainstream media is just starting to recognize that they can’t ignore us as a group.  Some would argue that at this point in our movement, we’d be getting the press no matter what and we might not need the caustic crutch anymore.  

While this is a fair point, I don’t think it’s a correct one.  Just look at the mainstream media in the UK, one of the world’s least religious nations.  I’m willing to bet that if you go to the atheism page on the Guardian’s website right now (regardless of when “right now” might be), you’ll find as many stories attacking atheists as you’ll find stories supporting them.  And you’ll find that same damned “angry, militant atheist” narrative being trotted out over and over again.

The primary objection to the copacetic approach to atheism is that I think it’s utopian.  Sure, when you’re talking to your wife’s mom or your kid’s teacher or your co-worker or your brother-in-law, that’s the way to go.  But to dismiss the atheist bench and the acerbic approach to atheist activism represented by Silverman’s leadership as “theological dick-waving” (an admittedly clever term coined by one of TGIA’s listeners/voice mail opiners) is to overlook the fact that this guy has actually hit upon a formula that works.  It gets the atheist message out there in a way that nobody else has been able to do in this country.  He stays in the headlines, he forces the conversation and he’s been damned good at it.

Like it or not, when you embrace the media narrative, the media embraces you back.

And, in the interest of extending an olive branch to the olive branch extenders, show me an example of the other way working; working in terms of getting press and forcing the discussion, and I’ll reconsider everything I’ve said.  But I’m first and foremost an empiricist and what I see David Silverman doing seems to be working, at least by my definition of working.  Until then, I’ll defend every non-aesthetic decision that went into that bench.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , , , , ,

“Messiah of Steel” – A Movie Review

June 16, 2013 3 comments

by Noah Lugeons

I’m a fan of movies, but I won’t pretend to be qualified to critique them.  Sure, in the “everyone’s a critic” sense, I can tell you if I liked a movie (I usually didn’t) and why (or why not).  But I’m not going to be able to comment intelligently on the cinematography or the score or the nuances of the performances.  But I like to think of myself as something of an expert at critiquing irritating Christian themes that sneak their way into otherwise non-Jesus-things, so it is in that capacity that I’d like to take on Zack Snyder’s latest in a series of brain-splitting computer-generated testosterone-vomit films, “Man of Steel”.

This is the same guy that brought us “300”, which you’ll recall for its endless sequences of computer generated abs moving in alternately really slow and really fast motion.  This is the same guy that managed to stay relatively true to the graphic novel when he made “Watchmen”, but still somehow managed to make it suck.  And now Warner Brothers has given him Superman to artistically rape.

I was nervous as soon as I saw that Snyder was attached to the picture, but I hoped that producer Christopher Nolan would be there to hold his leash and keep him from fucking it up too bad.  And while I hated everything beyond the first 30 minutes or so, I’m sure that Summer audiences will eat this crap up with a spoon and we’ll be treated to a couple more of Snyder’s feeble attempts at film-making in the inevitable trilogy to come.

So the big summer blockbuster Superhero movie sucked.  Not exactly a blog worthy occurrence.  I’d have left my bitching on Facebook and Twitter if it weren’t for all the heavy handed, brutally overdone Jesus allegories that plagued this movie that was managing to suck plenty enough by itself without Jesus.

I should admit up front that I’d already been researching a story about how this movie was being marketed to Christians, so I did go into it looking for the Jesus stuff.  I was primed to find Jesus allegories and I did.  But Zack Snyder has never been accused of subtlety and I’d venture that blind people who were hard of hearing could have picked up on the Jesus allegories in this flick just by smelling the print.

And before I’m accused of projecting these onto the film, let me give you a couple of examples of what I’m talking about (and don’t worry, no spoilers):

  • Superman is conflicted.  He’s sitting in a church talking with a priest.  The priest is telling him about the importance of sometimes taking a “leap of faith” in something you don’t trust.  When we see Superman, the background is a stained-glass window of Jesus wearing a red cape.  When we see the priest the background is just a big crucifix.
  • Superman is in a spaceship and he punches the wall out.  A friendly character tells him “You can save Lois,” and then, as he continues the line with the words, “You can save all of them”, Superman holds out his arms in a crucifixion pose for no fucking reason at all and floats out into space.  He holds this pose, which is completely pointless and counter-intuitive when one is floating through a jagged hole in a spacecraft, for a couple of seconds in case anyone was looking down at their popcorn.

These were the worst offenders that I noticed, but there were plenty more.

So one can’t help but wonder why all this Jesus crap got stuck into a Superman movie.  Is Superman a particularly Christ like character?  You’d have to really stretch to say that he was.  Sure, he performs miracles and he’s moral, but Jesus can’t fly and Superman can’t make wine.  Plus, martyrdom is sort of the key to the Jesus thing and Superman doesn’t die.  Is Superman more Christ-like than Spiderman or Martian Manhunter?  I think not.

Christ allegories aren’t really a signature of Snyder’s work.  This movie had all the things we’ve come to expect from Zack; more CGI than reality, long and horribly unsatisfying action sequences, a crappy script, a disappointed audience… but where’s all this Jesus coming from?

I can’t help but feel that ultimately it was a marketing ploy and the way that the film is being marketed through churches backs me up on this.  The studio wagered that if they got the Christians talking this movie up they’d make a lot of money even if it sucked (and it did).  They saw all those Passions dollars rolling in and they said, “why go to the trouble of making a good movie when you can just make a good preview and stick some Jesus stuff in there?”

Sadly, they’ll win the bet.  I absolutely hated the movie, but I’m sure I’ll be in the minority.  I’m sure I’ll spend the next month hearing how it was “almost as good as the Avengers” (a sentiment I actually agree with, but that’s another story for another day) and everyone involved in making the Jesus gambit will see it pay off.  And in the sequel, I’m sure Lex Luthor will be the anti-christ and in the third one Braniac will nail Superman to a kryptonite cross.

This isn’t much of a problem if it’s just the Superman franchise they’re fucking up with it.  But we do have to consider the consequences if this becomes a trend.  Will we get more religious figures sneaking their way into super hero movies?  Will the Hulk ride upon a winged horse?  Will Ironman force all his servants to get circumcised?  Will Wonder Woman immaculately conceive?  Will Will Gleek the Monkey die for our sins?

It’s hard to imagine that there’s a way to make the “superhero” genre suck more, but it’s comforting to know that they’re working on it.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Non-Trivial Problem

June 12, 2013 1 comment

by Noah Lugeons

I’ve been trapped in an endless and ultimately pointless debate on this blog for over a week now.  It all began when a pseudo-theistic pseudo-apologist commented on one of my “Live Blogging the Bible” posts with something that amounted to

“Tee-hee, yeah, this is a pretty silly part of the bible.  I agree.  But still, man is that book incredible and divine.”

Of course, I haven’t read the whole book and have barely crested the “preface” stage, but I still have to take issue with this assertion.  The book cannot be more than the sum of its parts.  If there are any genuinely meritorious parts of the book, one would still have to weigh them against the unscrupulous horrors in other parts of the book.  And honestly, the rest of the book would have to pretty damn good to make up for the misguided anti-morality of the first three books.

The crux of the apologists argument was that my cursory reading of the bible was worthless as I wasn’t taking the time to understand it in context.  I was also focused only on the bible and not the rich theology that has evolved through the ages.  Christianity, he argued, is not the bible.  The bible is just a starting point and the theology of the faith had advanced so much since the days of Moses’ foreskin aided wrestling match.

I pointed out that it’s not really possible to say that theology “advanced”, as one can no more say that theology of today is in accordance with the divine than the theology of yesteryear.  It’s like talking about a breakthrough in homeopathy or phrenology.  If the endeavor has no measurable value, it can’t be said to advance.  Advance suggests a destination.

Instead of answering that charge, my esteemed opponent instead accused me of “religious intolerance” as though I did not boast of it.  He suggested that I’d simply divided the world into the good people who are against religion and the bad people who are in favor of it.  It was a thinly veiled charge of anti-theistic bigotry that rested on my continued insistence that without a goal one can draw no nearer to the goal.  How dare I be so intolerant of people making bold and demonstrably false truth claims while insisting that they’re point of view should be respected and accepted without the burden of evidence?

This is a common tack from the “liberal” theist (and by liberal I refer here to their theology, not their politics).  Atheists are bullies that are every bit as dogmatic as the believers.  We’re intolerant of religious people (which is true) which means we’re just like the Muslims who are intolerant of the Jews (which is bullshit).  They, on the other hand, are agnostics with a property-less god and the only honest position: self-imposed ignorance.  We should just live and let live and who cares if fundamentalists stand in the way of science or oppress gays or mistreat women?  That’s not religion’s fault.

It is an intellectually dishonest position and what’s more, anyone smart enough to take this position is also smart enough to see why it’s bullshit.  Religious extremism is (as the name would suggest) simply a point on the spectrum of religiosity.  Some people have benign tumors but that doesn’t mean tumors aren’t a problem.  Fundamentalism is a problem that (a) all religions share and (b) cannot be found outside of a religious context.  This would suggest that fundamentalism is a necessary byproduct of religion.  And it really doesn’t matter what a bunch of Muslim scholars say about peace and love if the true believers are hacking people to death in the streets.

This is not a “live and let live” situation.  This is a situation that demands intolerance.  Religion is a non-trivial problem.

No rational person would wish for the destruction of the world.  Such a proposition is as irrational as any you might propose.  What’s more, no person irrational enough to wish for the destruction of the world could possibly acquire the means and assistance he or she  would need to make it happen.  While technology does give us the means to global catastrophe, it is hard to imagine that anyone with the stated goal of world destruction could find anyone willing to lend a hand.  Sure, a clever statesmen could use nationalism and deceit to trick enough people into helping him, but the very nature of logic forbids any large scale attempt to bring about the end of one’s own species.

But, of course, if logic can be removed, there is no such safeguard.  If one can be convinced without evidence that a whole different universe exists after you die that is way better and way more important than this petty world, you could overcome your natural survival instinct and happily march the planet toward the apocalypse that your god has promised you.

No doubt the liberal defender of theism would roll their eyes at this nightmare scenario.  They would pretend it is ridiculous.  They would pretend that there aren’t large, organized, multi-national groups with exactly this goal.  They would pretend that somehow reason can prevail amid a group that has outlawed reason.

And of course they would.  They have to.  They can’t accept that the same thing that gives them their own personal love-Jesus might also have a dark side.  And they certainly can’t accept that the dark side eclipses the bright side.

Religious extremism is just religion without constraint.  No religion has ever voluntarily tempered itself.  No religion has ever neutered its own power.  It is the job of the secularist, the job of the scientist and the job of the atheist to castrate religion every time it thrusts its scrotum into the rest of the world.  As fond as religion is of mutilating it’s own genitals, they still leave that job to us.

Categories: General Bitches and Gripes Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,