Due to my recent activities defending freedom of speech against the hypersensitive theists, I have faced an absence of writing. The responses I have received have been of a cordial nature, in keeping with open discussion and civil debate. The first to contact me was someone from a church close to UCT, asking to hold open discussions in the central plaza. Coordinating such an event given the infamous lax nature of UCT humanities’ admin is something I am, I suppose, sceptical about. I would go as far as to say I am a nonbeliever in the effectiveness of the administrations. I have to be shown proof of its efficacy.
Nonetheless, I then had an extended piece published in VARISTY, UCT’s official newspaper. It was read by one of the pastors by the Campus for Christ, who has since asked if I would have discussions in the main hall, Jameson Hall, on campus. He is attempting to gather around him such people as Errol Naidoo and Lugisane Nefale, both of whom I have severely critiqued. It will be interesting then – if this does occur – to see their real-time responses to my objections.
What will Nefale say when I point out his flaw that atheism requires faith, if our disbelief in his god is a faith, then his disbelief in Thor is a faith, too. What will Naidoo say to the false juxtaposition between homosexuality and Christianity? It will be interesting to discover their responses, since there is no time to pull bad reasoning out the air. Instead, we can watch it subsume into an amalgam of chaos, ripped from the veins of unreason, and threaded into some form of an English sentence. Thus, we will not have the final product before us in black-and-white, but watch the growth of this poisoned beast from its gestational phases.
What is the point of debate? Surely I see no hope in changing Naidoo’s mind? Of course not. But the point of debate is to allow for many opposing views to be aired. The many ears that will hopefully be quenched of their thirst for a flux of voices will be exponentionally larger than ears prepped for choir-preaching (of the theist and nontheist side). It will mean those who would never listen to someone like me – who will be godbashing as I always do, and not just capital “g” god – will be forced to. They will be forced to listen to me blaspheme against gods long since forgotten except to archeologists and small tribes.
This can only be a good thing since it raises awareness. Even if those who do not agree are still forced to lay out logically the points we raise. Since theistic arguments – by definition – do not fit logically or reasonably into any scheme, those who do believe can see why we find theistic arguments unappealing and rather mundance, if not completely flawed. I hopefully will be debating with my “partner in crime”, Jacques Rousseau, who has just written an extended piece I urge you all to read.
However, what could be their reasoning for wanting to debate me? Any thoughts? I do not exactly come across as very friendly in my writings, though in person I am gentle and fairly placid. At least, um, I think so.