Atheist fundamentalism

I'm an atheist. A flaming, out of the closet atheist. Lately, I've noticed a trend among religious folks toward referring to atheism as "fundamentalism," and, to be honest, I would probably laugh in the face of anyone who called me any sort of fundamentalist if they didn't all mean it so hard.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe. I'm all for your right to believe it, but I don't care what it is. I respect your ability to live a full, happy life however you see fit. I think I speak for a lot of atheists when I say this. It's in our best interest to support religious freedom, too. Unfortunately, we often don't have the same courtesy extended to us. While most of us are perfectly okay with you worshiping your god in whatever way you see fit, atheists are commonly seen as a "problem." As if we're somehow incapable of developing a moral grounding for ourselves without religion. As if somehow, the good we do isn't good because it's not in the name of a god. Personally, I'd say this point is not even worth addressing; if I can't speak with the authority of "god," I won't be changing any minds anyway. Moving on now...

I resent being called a fundamentalist by the sorts of people who want to keep us down in society based on their own religious fundamentalism. What this betrays to me is a huge lack of understanding of fundamentalism on the part of the accuser. Fundamentalism is an extreme adherence to a set of principles or a religion or pretty much anything, really. And for atheists, that's simply not there. Our disbelief in gods doesn't come from any specific place. Almost all of us arrived at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a god on our own, through different thought processes. We don't proselytize. We do often engage in debates, but they tend to be on more specific issues (such as evolution), rather than whether there is or isn't a god. No one is "converted" to atheism by missionaries going door to door or putting on events at a church. On top of that, the way we see the world changes with the data. We don't have an infallible text on anything. Even Darwinian evolution as outlined in The Origin of Species is not really accepted as the whole, official story, just like Galileo didn't contribute the entire body of modern astronomical knowledge. Atheism comes more from a recognition of our profound ignorance rather than from any sort of know-it-all mentality. We are well aware that we don't know everything, and we're also well aware that just jamming "god" in the place of things we just don't know is lazy and counterproductive when it comes to actually learning about those things.

Further distancing atheists from fundamentalists are our goals and the forms our activism takes. We don't want atheism to be the "national religion" (unlike people who refuse to let go of the idea that we're a "Christian nation" - based on very questionable evidence). We just don't want a national religion. We don't want god on our money or in our pledge of allegiance because we don't believe in a god and therefore, don't wish to pledge our allegiance to one. We don't want our tax money going toward monuments with religious symbolism on them. This is not because we want an "atheist" nation. It's because our constitution guarantees us the right to live in a country where we aren't assumed or expected to follow a particular religion. And to do that, there are two options: either we officially recognize every religion as our national religion, everything, no matter how far-fetched, on equal footing with everything else, or we keep the government and religion separate from each other. I like the latter option better. I wouldn't put my money in a collection plate, and I don't want the government to put my money in a collection plate, either. We're all okay with you putting your money in a collection plate, and conducting religious activities in ways that don't infringe on the rights of others, but apparently, our not wanting any part of it makes us "fundamentalists." In reality, we want a government that makes its decisions based on the facts available on any given issue, without those facts being "influenced" by religious belief in potentially harmful ways.

And the form our activism typically takes? Well, we don't kill people. We don't strap bombs to ourselves. We don't use tax-exempt organizations for sketchy purposes. We're not fighting any wars over "holy" lands. Typically we engage in debates, increase interest and educate people about science, raise awareness of the issues atheists face, stand up for the continued separation of church and state, and most importantly, come out as atheists publicly to encourage other people to do the same and quit being ashamed of their lack of belief.

Which, really, is not a very fundamentalist way of going about things, is it?

I love living in Idaho sometimes

This level of "redneck" is something I'd generally frown upon, but I think this is Idaho sinking so low, it's essentially just self-parody now. This one has it all: wolf hunting, free hats, free guns, and "big bad American trucks." The Mountain Home Auto Ranch truly does want to be your one-stop shop for all your redneck needs.

This is basically the funniest thing I've seen all day, in other words.

I think "big bad American trucks" is a phrase I'm going to make a point of using more often. Especially when I wouldn't want people to think I'm talking about some Japanese truck or something. Especially not a good one that may or may not be reasonably sized.

Been playing lots of Tony Hawk games lately

Today I was playing Tony Hawk's Proving Ground on my DS. Picked it up last month after spending a day with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 on my Playstation. You know, just to see what the hell was being done with the series. I have sort of mixed feelings about it.

On one hand, I like the fact that a skilled player can now continue a combo indefinitely. There aren't tricks that will instantly end your line anymore, at least, as long as you know how to use them properly. They range from the vitally useful (reverts, aggro kicks, spine transfers, acid/bank drops, etc. - and I'm aware most of those aren't unique to Proving Ground) to the completely useless, but awesome (bert slides, footplants, flatland tricks, natas spins, focus mode, etc.). Also, as far as I can tell, the nollie button is gone. I don't miss it. Never used it in the old games and wouldn't use it in this one. One curiosity in the DS version of Proving Ground is the stylus tricks. There's no reason those need to be there. They don't add anything to the game, and they're not implemented well at all.

On the other hand, it's now become virtually impossible to bail. You don't bail when you jump straight into a wall. You don't bail when you go off a quarterpipe, catch air, and land on flat land. You don't bail pretty much ever unless you lose your balance in a grind or a manual or hold a trick too long. It really has gotten far too easy. And even when you do bail, you can save your score with the Freak Out system, which, frankly, is pretty lame. While I understand that the style of gameplay is more "arcade" oriented, it's just gotten to the point where the challenge has been sucked right out of it, especially for players who've been around the series for a while.

So I really hope they go back to the drawing board with it. Maybe a more challenging gameplay style is in order? I'm not talking Skate-style realism here, but at least something a little less cartoonish (and yeah, I'm aware it's even been toned down since THUG2 - the low point of the main series in my opinion).

Let me tell you about a little somethin' somethin'

Hi. I'm Soup. If you don't know me, this blog probably won't be very interesting to you. I mean, you're welcome to stick around and all, but you'll probably get bored with my stupid rambling.

Okay. That disclaimer's out of the way; now it's time for another one: this is going to be the most unfocused blog on the internet. If you're looking for something specific, you'd probably be better off going somewhere else.

So there you go.