When Christianity is Evil

So. I went to church.

In my very early years, I attended a Greek Orthodox church. They are calm and generally unintrusive to one's personal life, so I have little issue with them. Once I turned eight, my family went to a new church. A pentacostal church. An Assembly of God Church.

That was the church I went to yesterday.

It was for my mother's birthday. I took her out for a nice breakfast, and since she is religious I thought it would please her. It did, however the sermon displeased me down to my core and gave a strong argument in favor of the proposition that Christianity can be downright evil.

This pastor joined the church just as I was transitioning into atheism. The previous pastor had sermons that I still remember fondly. He would generally start with a Bible passage or ten, and talk about what they meant and how it applied to people today. I can't say I really "like" this pastor. This "new" pastor, is a whole different animal. The most glaring difference is the energy level. Lots of shuffling back and forth across the stage, constant humorous asides, lots of motioning and over-emphasized inflection. Much more a spectacle than a sermon.

This makes it more hollow, but I made a claim that it was legitimately evil (insert Todd Akin joke here). That came in the message itself.

The pastor began with an anecdote about him playing golf at a driving range while testing out if his injury had healed. When the caged cart drove onto the field to pick up the balls, he decided to try to hit said cart, and got so swept up in his attempt that he didn't notice his injury had flared up again. He had gotten distracted.

Apparently, that's how it can be with God . . . more importantly, that's how people can be with God, meaning some of the relationships in a Christian's life can be a distraction. The prescription: drop these people.

However the way in which he went about preaching this says a lot. No specific description of when it is appropriate to cut someone out of your life, no prescription for understanding when that time should come. The most specific example was if a significant other isn't a Christian, you need to drop them. Other than that, transgressions as small as "a friend not understanding your faith", was enough. These are vague enough to allow each individual to interpret the message in the way that is most meaningful to them. If someone is having doubts, and those doubts are in reference to a person and points they bring up, then it puts the idea in their head to dump those individuals.

So when you aren't getting any resistance, press forward. If it appears that there could be something that could cause you to change your opinion about the religion, walk away. They are literally giving them strategies designed to maintain the status quo and avoid being exposed to any ideas that differ from the church.

In addition, they don't tell people to pray on it to ask God what his will is (which could result in the individual thinking they are meant to keep going despite the danger to maintaining their belief system), or to have faith that Jesus can help them see it through (despite earlier saying Jesus can get you through all of your problems if you let him). They inform them that it is totally acceptable to cut someone out of their lives if it is the more difficult spiritual path. This is apparently one area that God will never use a way to test your faith.

Lastly, this reinforces the idea in the minds of potential doubters that people will be willing to abandon them as friends and as a social support structure if they do not conform properly or begin to challenge established dogma in any way.

It isn't that this is evil because it is a religion doing it, it's evil because it would be an effective strategy to maintain any belief system, regardless of how true or false the belief system is. If it was implemented to protect a belief in the world being round or the belief that the world is flat, it would be an effective strategy to prevent people from doubting, but has the largest benefit to belief structures run by people who understand the weakness of their position. If you have a high level of faith in the truth of your belief, you would gain more by encouraging people to not back down when they have doubts, because they faith would entail a believe that there is an answer for said doubt. Organizers that think their position is weak, however, would benefit less for such a strategy, because they would understand that there is a high likelihood people would come across disconfirming or contradictory evidence. Therefore those that believe they have the weaker intellectual argument are more motivated to use such a tactic over the other group.

This sermon was evil, because it advocates that you break up friendships, romances, and even families if it means preventing doubt from ever crossing your mind. Truth is not important, conformity and listening to the church is.

Ban Islamic Clothing?

My friend Monica, Little Kropotkin on her blog and Youtube, brought up a really interesting topic that I think warrants a discussion, and that is to ask what place in our society does religiously mandated clothing (especially gender-specific clothing) have? Specifically we're talking about clothing that is to be worn in public at all times, and so that limits it mostly to the religion of Islam. Technically it's called for in Christianity, but I don't know of any denomination which actually follows that verse.

There are two questions to be asked here. The first is simple while the latter more nuanced:

1. Do these types of clothing, such as the hijab on one end or the burqua on the other, contribute to the presence of oppression against women.

2. How should modern society respond if indeed it is oppressive?

As I said, the first question is answered quite simply: Yes. Clearly mandating women cover themselves up because they are women is something that has in the past been mandated for either the express purpose or with the incidental effect of oppressing women.  Even the hijab, which is basically just a head covering that leaves the entire face uncovered, sends the message that women need to cover themselves up because they are women.

What doesn't follow from that, however, is that legal action must take place to prevent this oppression.  This is because it isn't inherently a tool for oppression. In other words, women may genuinely want to cover themselves up. To try to use legal force to prevent these clothing options pits the freedom of expression against the freedom from oppression.

It is the paradox of freedom that granting it invariably will lead to oppression in some other aspect. Here, we grant the freedom to wear whatever you want, but that invites oppression by allowing men to push women to cover themselves up in certain religions. They will convince them that it is what is best for them, and so long as they aren't being physically forced into wearing whatever costume that particular brand of religion mandates, the woman is acting upon her freedom to in this case obey. In this way, she is agreeing to be oppressed, in some situations. The only way to grant her freedom from this oppression is remove her freedom of expression. Thus the paradox.

Our idea of freedom is one that plays the long game. We allow terrible and even evil opinions to be offered and heard, with the understanding that over time only the best ones will survive. We don't remove the Westboro Baptist Church from the face of the planet because we know they will die out and to take action against them would lead to the slightly less offensive language being censored, and so on until we become the oppressors. We allow for, as long as there is no intimidation or fraud, for people to use coercion and persuasion to convince people to act against their own interests, knowing that such phenomenon will be short lived on the historical time-scale.

Luckily, we've already decided against banning these forms of clothing as a society. Only France has gone ahead with a ban. Even though it's been decided, since I never put out my official position on the matter and since Monica mentioned it I thought I'd throw in my two cents and discuss why we allow such things.

An Ironclad Proof of Dishonesty

AngryDrunkenTheist on Youtube posted an article from Huff Post entitled: "An Iron Clad Proof of God". Well he posted it on facebook, but since I'm not doc dropping him I'm referring to him as ADT. In it, Rabbi Adam Jacobs argues that, of course, the Cosmological Argument (or the Prime Mover argument) is so dreadfully fool proof that we can basically pack it in on the "god" question. The answer is "yes, there is a god" and now we can just focus on which one.

Well I regret to inform you, but this particular defense I find to be even worse than the "Kalam" Cosmological Argument proposed by Craig et. al. Maybe on a factual level it is no worse, but it is far more arrogant and includes what is an "Iron Clad" case of dishonesty. You can read the full article here, in case you want to follow along, but here is my response to the various points:

"For instance, inasmuch as there must be an ultimate non-contingent force, its non-contingency indicates that (as held in monotheism) it must be singular, for if there were more than one mover each would be limited----and hence contingent"

I see no reason to believe this follows. The idea of multiple space-times would seem to refute this statement.

"Such a force would also need to be immaterial as material things are changeable and therefore contingent."

Again, doesn't follow. If it did, then one could not say that this universe is "part of god" in any way, nor could Jesus be allowed as this is a change in the form of God, or at addition to the form, and thus goes against this definition. Even the Jewish version of god seems to change, or at least change his mind. It's okay though, since it doesn't follow this doesn't disprove monotheism.

"Inasmuch as that would include all powers, we would conclude that this being is all powerful and all knowledgeable."

This guy's brain must have grown legs because his is quite adept at leaps in logic. There is no reason to conclude this entity, should it exist, is even conscious. All that requires of it is an ability to somehow enable a scenario in which this universe exists. That is it. It doesn't need "all powers" nor does it entail it contains any knowledge at all.

"The reality is that most versions of the argument do not depend on particular scientific claims in any way."

Of course they don't, because those scientific evidences refute the argument.

"It's not a "God of the Gaps" argument. It is not intended to plug a hole in our scientific knowledge or asserted as a "best explanation" for evidence."

Except it is. As I pointed out, there are possible conceptions that would allow for the universe to be created by itself. The concept alone shows that this is relying on their "being no other way" which is at the very least a variation on the "god of the gaps" argument.

"It seems to me that an open-minded thinker, free of biases and misconceptions, would have no choice but to acknowledge the veracity of this argument."

It seems to me that he's making an argument then running a victory lap without hearing any rebuttals, as if he couldn't have made any mistakes along the way. That's right, our Rabbi spends not merely a sentence, but an entire paragraph patting himself on the back at how awesome an irrefutable his logic is and how silly it seems that anyone could find a flaw in what he's said.

Oh but fear not! This Rabbi knows why people just don't accept his perfect logic. He'll prove it with an Iron Clad quote-mine! Yes, the final word is an out-of-context quote from Thomas Nagel, who in "The Last Word" is discussing the nature of reason itself, citing that he prefers the idea of empiricism to that which would, in his mind, lead to "platonic harmony" as an explanation for reason. Reason, he opines, makes people nervous to think that is has some sort of foundation in this manner. However, this is what the Rabbi pulls from it:

"I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Here's the preceding quote:

"The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion in which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life."

So Nagel is in no way discussing anything to do with the cosmological argument, and this Rabbi is attempting to make it seem as though he's simply afraid to admit the veracity of it by ending the quote at "I don't want the universe to be that way". I'll admit, it's not truly an iron clad case of dishonesty (hence putting "Iron Clad" in quotes). However Rabbi Jacobs's only refuge from the label "dishonest" is a choice between lazy and ignorance. I do tend to lean towards him being dishonest, as he should be aware he could have posted that quote in response to any argument he made to make it seem like atheists are just too scared to see reason. It's an underhanded move if I've ever seen one. Claim victory and then show the poor scared atheist who clearly is just denying God out of some childish emotional hang-up.

I am truly disgusted by this display.

Not Assuming Why

So I am here to accept a criticism. AngryDrunkenTheist, or ADT, argues what I am guilty of the "wife beating" fallacy when I ask why we choose things.

You see, ADT believes in a form of agent causation, that causation flows one way from our conscious minds. And so I asked, "why did they choose that". ADT argues that my questions assumes his premise is false, just like asking "are you still beating your wife" assumes that the individual has beat their wife in the past.

So this is a valid criticism and I withdraw the question.

However . . .

I will be replacing the question with, "Is there a reason for the choice"? Now I am no longer assuming there is a "why", I am merely asking if there is one. The answer, I submit to you, is yes, there is a why and thus no such thing as agent causation. ADT even illustrates some of his own "whys". This is why I brought up the "multiple goals". Agent causation proponents will cite actions that run contrary to goals as evidence for their position, since supposedly only through freedom of will could one do such a thing. What this neglects is that people only act against their own goals when in pursuit of a more important goal. Sometimes it is protecting a loved one, or protecting their code, or even just wanting to try something new. When someone does act against their entire self interest, we generally refer to that individual as clinically insane.

As for the study, ADT asks for it but I did link the study. In both my blog and video. To be fair, I could only find the follow-up study, but it actually wound up being better than the original. What the studies did was look at MRI's while people decided whether to lift their left or right hand. This is the perfect thing, for it does not require any pesky reason, but a true choice of will. If anything would flow from agent causation, it would be this. Now it is true that they didn't get it right 100% of the time, mind you we're basically just monitoring bloodflow, but what the follow-up study showed was that the prediction became more accurate the closer to the decision it was made. Cross this with the Libet study that also showed unconscious precursors that initiated so-called free decisions and we have empirical evidence that what appears to be free choices are in fact determined and even initiated by unconscious processes. Thus there is no such thing as agent causation, your actions are just as caused as the rotations of the planets.

DasAmericanResponse

Hiya James. We are a bit overdue for this discussion aren't we?

James, DasAmericanAtheist, made a response to my video on Free Will, and yes James, I talk about Free Will a lot but I haven't brought it up in over a year until my last video, so I think I'm only beating a semi-dead horse here.

James brings up two points against my argument. Minorly he states that soft determinism is, for all intents and purposes, unfalsifiable and I will agree with him that unfalsifiable claims have little place in discussions of what we should believe. However I think James and I might BOTH be mistaken about soft determinism. I always thought of soft determinism as hard determinism with accepting at least the possibility of quantum randomness, and random will would hardly be considered the same as free will. However when I double checked it seems that soft determinism is really compatiblism, which I am not a proponent of. My position is not only that Free Will does not  exist, but that the very concept closely resembles a logical contradiction.

Rather than appeal to any form of determinism, I merely need to appeal to basic causality to dispel the myth of Free Will. Things happen for a reason, even if part of the reason is the randomness of quantum mechanics, that does not take away from the fact that our mental thought are caused, or shall I say determined factors outside of our control.  Unless one is to deny the truth that our neuro-chemical brains are affected by everything from how much sugar we've had to our DNA, to just random hormonal changes then there isn't much room for Free Will as your eventual decision is affected by all of these factors generally outside of your control.

Admittedly, this only dispels a broad definition of Free Will more common to theistic belief, and likely is not the kind Das is arguing for, if he's even arguing for anything. Mainly his video is just a critique of my reasoning which is a perfectly acceptable approach, even if we agree we must test out our reasoning. To summarize though, I don't follow soft determinism but rather appeal to the various forces beyond our control which determine our thoughts and actions.

Now for the study I cited, we come to James's main critique, in which he accepts the study as valid and says he's only going off of what I said about it. What I said was that the scientists were able to predict what people would consciously choose up to five seconds ahead of time. James says that he finds this unconvincing, however what does perplex me is that he alludes to my point leading to the Carterisan Theater, which originally was an idea Dan Dennet had as a way to negatively caricature René Descartes idea of dualism. It's the idea that within our minds there is a sort of homunculus, another entity responsible for our conscious experience.

Now I at no point alluded to anything other than our brains being responsible for our conscious experience and I state quite strongly that our brains are entirely responsible for our conscious experience. Now rather than rely on or promote the idea of a dualism of any sort, the study I mentioned supports the opposite conclusion.  Rather than a single entity using our brain as a sort of processing machine, the various parts of the processing machine come together to form consciousness.  Our brains work sort of like committee, so for example you see someone you are sexually attracted. How do you respond to that? Part of your brain is working to achieve the goal or either companionship or sex, but another part of your brain is trying to prevent the pain of rejection while another part is factoring in the risk in approaching the person with their friends around, which affects the part of the brain avoiding rejection because rejection in front of a group lowers you status in the group and increases the risk of further rejection down the line. Now all of this information can manifest itself in nervousness, or the idea to check yourself to make sure you look right, or perhaps an abandonment of the attempt all together because the risk was considered too great. You're not aware of all of these processes, but you know they exist because you can hone in on them if you sit down and think about it for long enough. That's generally what happens in psychological sessions, you delve into your own behavior to better understand why you do the things you do. If your decisions were made entirely by the conscious  part of your mind this would be entirely unnecessary. You'd know exactly why you did but so often we really don't. Most of the time really we don't. Some people spend decades of their lives trying to uncover the source of their behavior, and this flies in the face of the idea that our behavior is generated by conscious experience somehow cut off from the whole of physics. The fact that we can predict a conscious choice based off of looking at an MRI of the brain means that there are unconscious determinants to our decisions.

To summarize, consciousness is the result of your brain processes which are themselves the result of physics.

A criticism I received in the chat was that it is ridiculous to ask "why" ad infinitum because you can do that with anything. Sure, but I'm not asking "why" ad infinitum.  We have good and valid explanations for our behavior, and to lead people to those good, valid explanations. Those explanations show that our decisions are effected by things outside of what we would consider our "will" and thus our wills are only the result of physical processes.

One last thing before I go. I thought this would best be handled in a video rather in 4 comments, but user DivergentMind asks why consciousness evolved if it is merely determined and therefore does not give any benefits.

After thinking about it I think the premise is flawed. Consciousness is the ability to recognize that you exist, and contemplate your own experiences. So when you still feel hungry after gorging yourself, you can think "if I wait 15 minutes I'll feel full, perhaps I shouldn't continue". Without that conscious experience, without that ability, we would continue to eat until our brains got the signal to stop. We see such things in the animal kingdom all the time. So rather than evolve a single mechanism for quickly knowing when you are satisfied, a separate mechanism for recognizing when you should ignore or listen to your pain, and a thousand other mechanism that would take thousands of generations to form, consciousness allows us to adapt more quickly to a scenario and understand why we're feeling the way we do and adapt that knowledge to make actions that are more likely to be beneficial.

A response to this might be that I'm describing free will; your will or conscious mind imposing itself on the unconscious portions. There are two problems to this:

1. Your conscious mind's ability to do so is determined by the sections of your unconscious mind.

2. At best this establishes a feedback loop in which both the conscious and unconscious affect each other and neither is totally responsible for the end product, and still you don't have freedom of will. Just like the processor in a computer isn't solely responsible for the program running, it requires cooperation from all portions to get the final result.

In summary, I'm not a compatiablist, I'm not a dualist, and conscious experience is caused by chemical reactions that are subjected to the laws of physics.

Have a nice day, and thank you for the response James.

Free Agency Only Exists in Sports

So someone I talk, argue, and debate with  frequently on facebook made a response to someone else I talk, argue, and debate with frequently on facebook. However, the response was on the topic of free will or free agency, so I have to butt in. On Youtube his name is AngryDrunkenTheist, but here I'll just call him ADT.

ADT defines Free Agency as, and I'm paraphrasing "the ability of an agent to choose between two actions that each satisfy the same goal". So the example ADT gives is one in which he has the goal of drinking something hot to satisfy him, and the available options are coffee and tea. His Free Agency lies in his ability to choose between the two.

This is, generally, an accurate representation of what most people think of when referencing Free Will. Unfortunately, among commonly held concepts is it one of the most painfully false ones I am aware of insofar as its application to humanity. There are two ways to dispel this notion, one is to ask a question, the other is to state a fact.

The question is simply "why". To fully dispel the Free Will notion we need only ask this one question, though several times. Why, in this instance, do you choose coffee over tea? You could try and beg the question "because I choose to", but then ask "why do you choose to"? Generally it is because you have deduced that coffee is that which satisfies your goals. Did you choose for coffee to satisfy your goals better, or did you think about it for a while, evaluate what your experience with coffee will be over tea, and logically deduce your goals would be better satisfied with coffee. Notice I say "goals" and not "goal".

That brings us to the fact: Brains don't work the way ADT believes. He cites this "highest goal" as though we only work out one problem at a time, in serial order. This couldn't be further from the truth. While you could possibly reduce our goals to the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, that isn't how they generally manifest. So when ADT says this:

"Why can't it just be that wanting to try something new was my highest goal". The answer is, because you have many goals. Here ADT gives a scenario in which he actually chooses tea over coffee, despite deducing that coffee was the best way to satisfy his desire for something hot to drink. He offers up *as an explanation for this decision*  that he *also* has a desire to try something new. Now it could be that his desire to try something new was greater than his desire to have something hot, however a more likely scenario is that tea satisfies your desire for something new *without* compromising your desire for something hot, therefore you deduce that tea is what will satisfy the most goals for you. You see, ADT's argument more often than not goes against his position, not for. Whenever he discusses a decision, he always does so within the context of a reason, or more accurately, a cause. Or as I like to call it, a determining factor.

It's even worse for ADT's position than that. The Haynes et. al study, and yes I always bring up this study because it is so relevant to this discussion, dispelled any notion of Free Will. Through looking at the unconscious parts of the brain, they were able to predict the conscious choices of the participants five seconds or more before the individual had made their decision. Through proving that our decisions are highly affected by unconscious forces within the brain, they effectively removed the possibility of our conscious agency being the primary force or even a significant force, behind our actions. Rather, our cognitive processes are broken down in parts of the brain, and different unconscious parts can be fighting to go in different directions. Eventually a consensus is built by which direction has the strongest voices pulling for it, and that's how the action or decision manifests itself.

Lastly, ADT anticipates an argument and attempts to respond to it in advance, that being what would happen if you turned back time to a choice you've made in the past. Could you choose differently? ADT rejects this argument claiming "How could I chose otherwise when I've already chosen?" Well, if we're rewinding time then no, you have NOT already chosen. This argument is done to illustrate the facts that your actions are determined by your determined logic and reasoning, not some ill-defined abstract "agency", for if you say that you would always make that decision the same way no matter what then your will doesn't control your actions and you can't "choose between two actions that each satisfy the same goal". If you say "yes", you could choose something different, then you'd have to describe your thought process coming to a different conclusion based off the same evidence, thus making any Free Will you assert indicative of irrationality.

However, if ADT really finds problems with the "going in the past" scenario, then I can merely extend it to the future. Instead of rewinding time, imagine a scenario in which someone with memory issues chooses coffee, walks outside and puts his coffee down to . . . tie his shoe. He gets up, forgets he already ordered coffee, and realizing he wants something hot, goes back into the store to order something. So he's back in the store, let's assume his mind forgot everything that happened to him and for all intents and purposes his mind and brain are exactly the same as they were when he ordered last time. Technically this is still a new choice now. Could he then choose tea, and if so, how do you explain that decision without appealing to changing circumstance, of which we've already ruled out?

On Dramagate

Those who hold a level of familiarity with my channel would likely describe its relation to drama as virtually non-existent. Searching my memory of my Youtube experience has returned only a single instance of what could be considered a "pure drama" video, an instance in my career that has long been privated per request of the party concerned.

Yet here I find myself at the precipice of one of the largest pieces of drama to hit the Youtube atheist community since "Wafergate". That too I commented on, yet I tried to remove myself from the personal side of the drama and focus on the intellectual side of who was in the right. That will mostly remain my objective here, however the situation may cause me to take a step further and dip my toes in the proverbial waters of drama.

Why, you ask? If there is anything that all sides of "Dramagate" can tentatively agree on, it is that there is too much drama, so why would one of the few members of the community who routinely avoids drama cross the line over to the poor man's Broadway?

The answer is simple: Dramagate isn't really about who did what, but instead it concerns itself with the direction of the atheist community itself. There is no more important topic in a community than that, and thus this requires a deeper investigation, and a wider perspective than most commentators have given it credit.

It also concerns individuals that I (still) have a high level of respect for, most prominently that of DarkMatter2525 who remains at the center of the event. For those of you who have been patient enough to read up until this point without knowing what "Dramagate" is, you will be less than pleased to know that the aforementioned DarkMatter, along with a few co-conspirators such as BionicDance, generated false rumors than DarkMatter had done something reprehensible in the eyes of a few people. Many a vague video was made alluding to these rumors, which lead me to an early conclusion (along with many others) that the drama was indeed fake.

Once it was admitted to be fake, it was revealed that the purpose behind this ruse was to illustrate our level of addiction is to drama, to point out how views went up when people talked about it in comparison to the more intellectually driven material on the same channels. AtheismTV compared the lackluster views of my interview with James Randi with the views of an interview with the far more controversial Thunderf00t as further evidence of this problem.

The criticisms of this move were passionate and filled with conviction at the inherent problems within Dramagate, though to my knowledge only fell into two categories. Some found the entire exercise pointless, they claimed with great accuracy that it was obvious to any observer that the community was largely drama focused and therefore the effort expose it as such was unnecessary. Analogies to water being wet or simple references to the word "duh" could be heard from many mouths and read from many screens. Others were more hurt, feeling this attempt to deceive, regardless of its success, breached a form of trust.

It is my humble opinion that both of these criticisms fail.

It is true, little imaginative muscle is required to view Youtube as drenched and entrenched in drama. It is also true that proving that fact was unnecessary. The issue arises from detractors of this event having unintentionally glossed over one important detail: more than merely 'illustrating" the problem, the perpetrators of this particular farce attempted to do something about the problem. One could possibly accuse the attempt of a level of ineptitude, but that hardly comprises the main thrust of the argument being made, if it is even present at all. This is not a criticism of all those who have not made an attempt at bettering the situation. It is perfectly reasonable to chalk drama up to human nature and therefore not something that can be solved. However to declare the obviousness of the problem, while participating in its proliferation, leaves one without room to rebuke those who honestly seek to combat it, regardless of their effectiveness.

As for those left feeling hurt or betrayed, who claim they were lied to and deceived, I believe a brief lesson in history is in order. As strange as it is to say it, even Youtube now contains a level of history that helps us understand our own situation all the better. It was years ago when DasAmericanAtheist and AHughman08 decided to play a little April Fool's joke on their subscribers. They pretended that each had stolen the others' channels. At first they played it as a joke, which then turned more serious as they began deleting (or privating in real life) each others' better works, and eventually claiming the channel they stole for their own.

It was not a largely successful endeavor. Despite my intervention and attempt to lend credence to their story, the fact that it happened on April Fool's Day made few people buy the story as legitimate. The difference between this event and Dramagate is that the former was done as a joke, and the latter to benefit the community. The other difference is that the the fomer lacked any serious backlash. Individuals seemed amused at the attempt, but little anger came from it to my knowledge. If we are to have outrage, it should at least strive for consistency. If we can forgive a joke, we can forgive Dramagate. There is nothing immoral in deception if it be both temporary and intended for good, as was the case here.

Now that I've exposed myself as shill for DarkMatter and his co-conspirators, hopelessly biased in their favor and unable to admit any wrong-doing on their part, let me begin my own criticism of their work. I do not disagree with their actions insomuch that I found their execution to be lacking, and largely responsible for the backlash that occurred.

For example, AtheismTV confesses that the overly vague set-up was intentional, and that those that recognized it as fake drama should be lauded. While exhibiting a healthy dose of skepticism is justifiably an important and advantageous trait in the atheist community, it has little to do with the prevalence and overpowering presence of drama. By allowing the ruse to be largely detectable, it shifted focus from the actual issue of drama to whether or not this instance was real, creating a legitimate instance of drama that distracted from the fake drama and thus weakening the overall case. The discussion of the legitimacy of a claim is integral to our community, and thus not something you can criticize one for getting involved in like you could for the personal life of DarkMatter.

By intending for some people to see through the facade, the creators of Dramagate forced themselves, unknowingly of course, into a no-win situation. There were three possibilities as far as reaction to the event. Either it was ignored as drama, focused on as drama, or it was understood to be a sham. Those that ignored the drama as it did not concern them are still to be congratulated, but other than providing a metaphorical pat on the back this group gains no benefit from Dramagate as they were not the intended targets. Now among the ranks of those that saw the hoax for what it was, perhaps there exist a portion of the intended targets. Perhaps though they may have passed the test of skepticism with flying colors, they would have failed the drama test had the story been legitimate. Sadly, we can never know from this experiment who these individuals are, and without evidence they can boldly assert the contrary and we have no recourse to disagree with them. Their beliefs in their resistance to drama strengthens, regardless of the reality they live.

Surely though, you argue, between those members taken in by the deception they will see the light and perhaps even benefit enough to not feed the fires of drama within the community, or at least feed it with less fervor. Perhaps some, but unlikely many. Most certainly the list is scant compared to one in which the majority fell for the deception. With the safety of numbers, with a common experience among a large group, there is no shame attached. Compare the experience of being the only one naked in crowded room with one in which all are naked and of the same body type. The former elicits feelings of embarrassment and shame, while the latter allows for contemplation of the shared experience. How does that compare to our current state of affairs? In a community which prides itself on intellect and skepticism, we now have a group that has failed tests for both, in a very public way. Rather than encourage awareness of how they react to and proliferate drama, we instead encourage an intense session of social self-preservation. Rather than look at how to change, efforts to explain away their now public failings abound, excuses rain down from sky, and ways to shift the metaphorical mountain of shame onto a proper scapegoat for all to witness are processed and implemented. Here the scapegoat can only be those who started it all, those individuals who dare lie to us and violate our trust. What gives them the right to police the community and declare there's too much drama? They're acting like the gods of atheism with their high and might message about how we're all wrong. I was concerned about DarkMatter for nothing. Pay no attention to my reaction behind the curtain! These reactions are as understandable as they are human. It is part of our human psychology to do these things, do not think of what I say in regards to those that fell for it a criticism. We've all fallen for tricks before, and we all rationalize and divert attention when we do.

I think Dramagate was a mistake, but a mistake blown out of proportion. One that at most deserves an eyeroll and at least deserves forgiveness for any negative repercussions. We all make mistakes, and to stay upset at this one goes above and beyond. We are better than this, and even if this was something to be taken more seriously than I advocate, clearly it must be tempered with the significant contribution that DarkMatter has made to the community. Let's learn from this and get past it. Unless of course, we'd rather dramatize it further.