Yeah, I know you say you were addressing both sides, but in practice, when Bells insults members you side with her and say the insult is justified. When people call her on her shit, we get threatened with thread closure. It's bogus. Just stay out of it.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I know you say you were addressing both sides, but in practice, when Bells insults members you side with her and say the insult is justified. When people call her on her shit, we get threatened with thread closure. It's bogus. Just stay out of it.
So in other words, you are so selfish and self absorbed that it's all about you.. If I criticise your privileged standpoint and your selfish attitudes, then of course, I want your head on a pike, because you? Well you are the 'great white hope', who can do no wrong and can never even be criticised or contradicted because if you are, you throw a hissy fit, whining that someone dared to disagree with you. Do you even understand how ridiculous you sound? You're like the perfect example of the dolts who started calling French fries Freedom fries. You are so American centric that even criticising the Western atheist ideology that has so fully missed the mark because they are so self absorbed, resulting in a rise of millions of fundamentalist Christians across Africa and Asia, then yes, that's just racist. Get over yourself Balerion. You don't even know where the issues actually are in regards to this. Let alone what they are.
I think you know where you can place your personal pile of manure you carry around like a chip on your shoulder.
How much have you donated to trying to break the religious fundamentalist hold in Africa, Balerion? Oh wait, that's right, you don't even know that's where the issues are currently.. That's where gays are being killed and women being abused and denied rights and minorities, religious and otherwise, are being abused and killed. No no, you think the issue is anyone who dares to disagree with you. And critiquing your Western centric selfish views means that people are racist for pointing out the idiocy of your form of ideology. It's hysterical. Meanwhile, black gays are being beaten, abused and killed in Africa. So put your money where your mouth is. Instead of undoing the good work of people in countries like Uganda who are scrambling trying to reverse the damage done by Western Christian fundamentalists from America by calling them stupid and dumb for being theists, and calling the millions upon millions of theists there who are the ones who can make the difference between life and death stupid for being theists, you could.. oooh, I don't know, get your head out of whatever black hole you have jammed it in and actually see the proverbial light and do something worthwhile for a change instead of whining that it's all about you?
LOL! What is this, "I'm rubber, you're glue?" You just outed yourself as a know-nothing when it comes to atheism or its related issues, so, what, you're going to take my own observation and throw it back at me? That might work on the playground (where you apparently stopped maturing, both emotionally and intellectually) but it's not going to fly here. Here, we can all see that you're talking out of your ass. If that's too vague for you, try this on, (one last time) none of you have actually criticized atheism. You've caricaturized it. You've made straw man arguments and invented boogeymen. You're Reikuing this forum right now. You are to atheism what psikyhacker is to physics.
Bells
Staff member
There are several solutions.
1) Challenge laws that Christian fundamentalists in the West constantly attempt and sometimes do implement in various States, towns, counties in Federal courts. This is costly, but challenging their oppressive views with legislation and the law and deeming them unconstitutional is the best way. This is how the gay marriage laws were changed. In the court rooms.
2) Education. Challenge laws and attempts by the Christian right to implement religious based education in public schools. This should also be done in the courts - based on separation of Church and State rules which are enshrined in most Western democratic constitutions.
3) Altruism and helping the poor. The reason that religious fundamentalists have been able to gain such a big foothold in the West and in Asia, Africa and many parts of Europe is that they target the poor and those who are suffering. They literally provide food, shelter, health care in one hand and a Bible in the other. And they literally encourage and in some instances, tell the people living in these horrendous situations that they will help them if they convert. The anti-gay laws in Uganda and the prevalence of homophobic sentiment in countries like Uganda can trace its way right back to the US and many of the ultra-right Christian fundamentalists who have guided them down the road they are now on. The so called battle front has moved to 3rd world countries and to religious fundamentalists, this is where they will gain the most 'lost souls'. You want to halt and reverse the damage? Provide aid and education to 3rd world countries without 'conversion clauses'. Remove religion out of that equation and stop insulting their religious beliefs. Doing so will mean that they will be unlikely to be swayed or want to accept education from you for their children.. You don't even need to look at 3rd world countries. Look at your own. Ultra right fundamentalist churches often go to prisons and visit very poor areas and provide help, counseling, aid with one hand and a religious book in the other. It's how and why so many prisoners convert to Islam. Where there are people who are despondent and desperate, it is a ripe ground for religious conversions and if you get fundamentalists doing the conversions? Well, look at Uganda as a prime example. In Australia, for example, Islam has made great inroads in converting young Aboriginal males. They are over-represented in the criminal justice system, they feel desperate and lost with little to no options. Prime pickings for any religious organisation. And it is the same everywhere.
This is the very basics of some solutions that should be utilised.
However for some participant(s) in this thread, recognising this is racist.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I guess that my suggestions might be....
1. Don't confuse philosophical arguments about the existence or non-existence of supernatural deities with partisan arguments about domestic (typically American, it seems) political ideology. They are very different arguments.
2. Don't approach philosophical arguments as a battle of 'good-guys' versus 'bad-guys'.
3. Don't fall prey to elementary errors in critical thinking, such as faulty generalization.
4. In particular, don't turn your perceived opponents into caricatures. That's just stupid. Not every atheist is a lock-step member of some raving militant political bloc. And not every "religionist" is a theist, let alone a "redneck retard" asshole idiot who is out to destroy everything good, smart, progressive and decent.
Depends on what the question is. Since this is a trolling thread to begin with, my positive proposal would be for Tiassa and his cronies to get their heads out of their asses. That may sound mean, but I believe rudeness should be treated in kind.
If you're asking about what atheists can do to advance their cause, you needn't worry; they're already doing it. Contrary to the buffoonery you've seen perpetuated by the "critics of atheism," in this thread, atheists are getting their act together and coming out in droves. They are establishing charities and communities all over the world, but particularly in the west, in all communities. There are, of course, problems (such as Dawkins wanting to call the atheist movement "Brights;" an idea that was quickly squashed by people who aren't socially retarded) but the things you've heard from these people are all inventions of their warped little minds.
Bells
Staff member
And you have just whined because you still can't understand the issues because it's all about you.. Nothing really new with you, is it?
You are the very caricature of 'atheism'.
The angry privileged male that often characterises and embarrasses atheists everywhere with his intolerance. And you are intolerant, whether you want to admit it or not. And the level of your intolerance is on par with the ultra right Christian fundamentalists in the US, for example. It's either your way or no way. Anyone who dares to criticise your ideology is either racist, stupid, a theist (*gasp*) or simply out to get you..
Kelly: Because like a fundamentalist you make everything about in-group and out-group. Religious believers can’t just be wrong, they have to be evil.
Jaime: So they’re not homophobic or misogynistic or irrationalistic?
Kelly: Not all of them.
Jaime: Look, I’m not saying they are all unilaterally evil in everything they do. But is there a greater influence keeping people homophobic than religion? Worldwide, is there any kind of institution offering more moral, social, and political support for patriarchy and oppressive practices like female genital mutilation and veiling than religious ones?
Kelly: I get that. Those are evils. Plenty of people realize that. Even millions of religious people.
Jaime: But the moderates do not undermine the belief in the books and traditions that lead to those interpretations by their fundamentalist coreligionists. In this way they accommodate them.
Kelly: Don’t you get it, Jaime? The fundamentalists came into being explicitly as a rejection of the “moderates”. They coined the word “fundamentalist” to distinguish themselves from other believers who got away from “the fundamentals”. They quite often don’t see them as even being “true believers”. They have immense scorn and derision for liberal interpretations of their faiths. They see them as heretics and traitors and false prophets. They are not thriving on their aid any more than monstrous, oppressive atheistic communist regimes require or have the support of liberal, democratic atheists like you.
Jaime: Oh here we go with the atheists are mass murderers canard. Communist regimes don’t kill “in the name of atheism”. Atheism does not lead there. I have nothing to do with such oppression just because I am an atheist.
Kelly: Did I say you did? No, I said the opposite. But it is worth pointing out that atheism did not stop atheists from imposing illiberal, murderous regimes anymore than religiosity ever stopped religious people from imposing illiberal murderous regimes. No one is immune to hate or arrogant overestimation of their own absolute correctness. And no one who succumbs to hate or such arrogant absolutism about beliefs can be trusted with power—no matter whether they are the most religious or the most irreligious person on the planet.
Jaime: But I don’t hate.
Kelly: You’d better not.
Jaime: And more than that, unlike the communists we contemporary atheists make our stand on science and against dogmatism itself, unlike the communists who were just dogmatic absolutists impervious to empiricism.
Kelly: If you are really so rationalistic and so impervious to absolutism and fundamentalism, then show it. Don’t demonize, stigmatize, or deliberately disrespect religious people, don’t exaggerate your correct objections to their false beliefs and false practices into attacks on even their salvageable ideas and harmless or benign practices. Look to understand them and how their beliefs and practices, despite being false and ludicrous, actually stick around by also providing good things in spite of themselves. When you cross the line from merely disliking what they do that is wrong, or correcting what they think which is false, to hating every signifier of their existence and thinking every influence and every effect they could ever possibly have on the world must be pernicious, you move from rational, targeted critique to irrational, reflexive, dogmatic, generalized, hatred and the desire to eradicate them. You lose all nuance, balance, understanding, and charitableness, and instead become a bigot.
Jaime: I’m not a bigot! I just believe in calling false beliefs false and harmful practices wrong, and not giving any special deference to the sense of privilege that the religious feel. These are institutions with the gall to set themselves up as the arbiters of right and wrong, and yet they set up deliberate obstacles to free thinking and to conscientious, progressive introspection which can lead to improved values in light of improved understanding of truth. And yes, I want there to be no more religious people—in that I want to dissuade them from their false beliefs. That’s not because I want to commit genocide!
Kelly: I get that, I concede you can criticize many things legitimately. But you risk crossing the line when you start to find something devious in every positive effect religions have, the ones they have in spite of their falsehoods and bad values. Or when you start assuming that they each adopt the worst interpretations of their faiths (even when such interpretations are relatively rare), or into assuming they have evil motives, or into seeing them as only enemies—defined ever and always only by what is wrong with them. Do those sorts of things and you are on a worrisome path to a fundamentalist sort of hate that says, “agree with me on everything or go to hell”. Fundamentalism is not really about what you believe or about whether it is correct or false, but about how you believe it—i.e., with an unblinking assurance you are absolutely right and absolutely good and all who disagree with you are absolutely wrong and absolutely bad. When you start thinking those who disagree with you are so wrong they never have anything worth saying and they are so corrupt that they cannot be trusted with children, and when those who essentially agree with you are traitors to your cause for small divergences from orthodoxy—you are essentially a fundamentalist in most of the ways that make fundamentalism so odious.
Does this dialogue sound familiar? Can you see the similarities?
You are Jaime.
You want to win this issue? Stop being Jaime.
Ad hominem and impotent shit-slinging. In other words, "nothing really new iwth you."
And now she turns this into an excuse to bash men. How utterly predictable.
I certainly am intolerant. I'm intolerant of bigotry, of misogyny, of racism, and of stupidity. I'm intolerant of ideas that are harmful to society; I don't think they deserve respect, and I don't think I should be asked to respect people who think them.
But this is a Syne tactic, calling a person who hates bigots a bigot themselves. It didn't go anywhere when he tried it, and it certainly won't do you any good here.
Speaking of stupidity, how could you possibly know my intolerance is on par with "ultra right Christian fundamentalists in the US?" What gives you this impression?
If any of you had actually criticized my ideology, you might have a point. After all, criticizing women's rights, equal treatment in the eyes of the law for all people, and a secular government is pretty much exclusively done by stupid, racist theists.
However, let's address this one point you keep harping on: You, Bells, are a racist. You demonstrated that with your idiotic anti-white rant several weeks ago, and I haven't forgotten it. I haven't accused people criticizing this caricature of atheism as being racist, I've accused you of being racist. No need in dragging other people into that ugly mess in your head; I was talking directly to, and specifically about, you.
This isn't about winning. There is no way to "win" an argument with someone who is ignorant of the facts and too stubborn to admit it. You can only point out that ignorance, let everyone see it, and hope that the other is shamed into getting an education. I can't even call this practice, since we're not actually arguing about atheism. You--like Kelly--are creating an erroneous image of atheism and misrepresenting me as belonging to this false idea. Then, you're making up all these arguments that are supposed to be mine, like "You can't take criticism of your ideology," and "You can't win converts by abusing them for their beliefs." And on top of this, you're so ignorant of atheism, you just assumed there were no prominent female atheists! You have no clue what atheists are up, who they are, what they want, but you expect me to believe that you have a valid argument?
Go read a book. Follow the links I gave you, and read up. Educate yourself, then come talk to me about how we can improve the secular movement. Right now, you don't have the first fucking clue what the problems are, and you're only spinning your wheels by buying into Tiassa's hateful bullshit.
This and That
You have to understand, AI, how funny half-witted, would-be "theological" examinations are when coming from people tailoring their arguments for political purposes.
To wit, the Josephus passage is forged; it always astounds me when "atheists" address this point but can't deal with the reality. The thing is that the forgery is a forgery when that helps the cause that doesn't exist, but not so much if one finds another political purpose for complaining about the forgery as if it was real. Argumentatively, it's a malleable point. It's one thing to pick on a lack of argumentative consistency among the religious, but another entirely to rely on that lack in defense of atheism.
And here I'll even make a definitive statement about atheism: Integrity hurts the cause that doesn't exist.
No, really, dude, go ahead and rely on the works of theists such as Karen Armstrong to prove your point.
Oh, wait, you're not even smart enough to do that.
Sorry, didn't mean to challenge you on a point covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Then what is it about, other than your hatred?
It would be cute how you try to denigrate those who don't agree with your presupposition of the week, except it's also kind of dangerous.
I think the problem you're experiencing, Balerion, is that you are unreliable. You cannot be trusted. You're just not honest enough. As Bells quoted:
So what is it, then?
Here, let's try it this way: Were Nazis fundamentally wrong, or simply inadequately aimed?
No, really. They went after a religious sect. For this, the Nazis are demons of our human history; why is this? Is it because they were fundamentally wrong, or is it because "Jews" get a pass?
Seriously, why would you object to the Nazis?
Aqueous Id said:
You have to understand, AI, how funny half-witted, would-be "theological" examinations are when coming from people tailoring their arguments for political purposes.
To wit, the Josephus passage is forged; it always astounds me when "atheists" address this point but can't deal with the reality. The thing is that the forgery is a forgery when that helps the cause that doesn't exist, but not so much if one finds another political purpose for complaining about the forgery as if it was real. Argumentatively, it's a malleable point. It's one thing to pick on a lack of argumentative consistency among the religious, but another entirely to rely on that lack in defense of atheism.
And here I'll even make a definitive statement about atheism: Integrity hurts the cause that doesn't exist.
No, really, dude, go ahead and rely on the works of theists such as Karen Armstrong to prove your point.
Oh, wait, you're not even smart enough to do that.
Sorry, didn't mean to challenge you on a point covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
• • •
Balerion said:
Then what is it about, other than your hatred?
It would be cute how you try to denigrate those who don't agree with your presupposition of the week, except it's also kind of dangerous.
I think the problem you're experiencing, Balerion, is that you are unreliable. You cannot be trusted. You're just not honest enough. As Bells quoted:
"If you are really so rationalistic and so impervious to absolutism and fundamentalism, then show it. Don’t demonize, stigmatize, or deliberately disrespect religious people, don’t exaggerate your correct objections to their false beliefs and false practices into attacks on even their salvageable ideas and harmless or benign practices. Look to understand them and how their beliefs and practices, despite being false and ludicrous, actually stick around by also providing good things in spite of themselves. When you cross the line from merely disliking what they do that is wrong, or correcting what they think which is false, to hating every signifier of their existence and thinking every influence and every effect they could ever possibly have on the world must be pernicious, you move from rational, targeted critique to irrational, reflexive, dogmatic, generalized, hatred and the desire to eradicate them."
So what is it, then?
Here, let's try it this way: Were Nazis fundamentally wrong, or simply inadequately aimed?
No, really. They went after a religious sect. For this, the Nazis are demons of our human history; why is this? Is it because they were fundamentally wrong, or is it because "Jews" get a pass?
Seriously, why would you object to the Nazis?
Bells
Staff member
And you have no clue.
My racist rant a few weeks ago? You mean when I pointed out what every single feminist already knows that feminist discourse is dominated by white Western women? This is common knowledge. There are books upon books that discuss this very fact. How is it racist to acknowledge a historical and current fact? Do you think I am criticising what you seem to believe is your race when I point out this fact? How dare I, a negro, criticise your white privilege.. I must be a racist for pointing out that feminist discourse has historically and presently been dominated by white Western women. That is is how you approached my critique of the feminist movement, along with every single other minority feminist and Western feminist out there.
And I think that is the central basis of your anger about this thread. Your privilege is being questioned and critiqued.
You and others carry on about the dangers of religious ideology, blah blah blah. You're so busy running around trying to spit on the fire to try to put it out that you failed to notice the giant fire hose floating in front of your nose. It's hysterical. Instead, it is all about you and how you are being maligned by a comment aimed at sciforums atheists.. So it became about you. You felt insulted and continue to feel insulted. And as is often the case with you, when I point out the inherent dangers and how atheists have failed, it became about race, about how I, the coloured woman, wants your white male head on a pike. As I said, you are the epitome of the "Freedom fries" movement. You are incapable of seeing anything outside of 'Murica. You cannot even understand or grasp what has been happening in the last 10 years. Do you honestly think that if all theists or religionists are as you and others try to portray them in this thread, that gays would be allowed to marry? That women would even be allowed to vote in the West? Think about it. No, really, actually think about it.
The majority of the rights we have and that we continue to fight for are only obtained when theists help us vote, support court challenges, etc, in court.
You are quick to whine and complain when fundamentalist atheists are critiqued. You complain that we are all being tarred with the same broad brush. But that is exactly what you do to theists. The very theists that have fought for civil rights (which we would not have without them), you abuse and insult for being not on the side of reason and all the moronic and idiotic things you have come out with in this thread.
Atheism will fail if it becomes like the very thing it detests.. evangelical.
And many of you are.
You are Jaime, whether you want to admit it or not. The very arguments you have whined about are identical to Jaime's argument. And you are not the only one. You need to win. You need to be right. Anyone who dares critique you or your ideology is against you and immoral and wrong.
You want to understand the feminist movement? Then get a clue, read some books, do some research before you make even more stupid comments about things even you admitted you know very little about. You were too interested in jumping on the word "white".
You don't want to win? So what are you doing? You want to bring reason to the masses? You want the populace to embrace scientific reasoning instead of relying on mythical Gods? Then stop treating them as if they are stupid.
As I said, you want to make an actual difference? Then put your money where your mouth is and help the poor. You'll make a greater impact in helping them embrace reason and science instead of insulting them for their religious beliefs as they starve to death. But no, to point that out is racist, isn't it?
But that's not why you are here, is it? You are here just reacting, as you always do.
My racist rant a few weeks ago? You mean when I pointed out what every single feminist already knows that feminist discourse is dominated by white Western women? This is common knowledge. There are books upon books that discuss this very fact. How is it racist to acknowledge a historical and current fact? Do you think I am criticising what you seem to believe is your race when I point out this fact? How dare I, a negro, criticise your white privilege.. I must be a racist for pointing out that feminist discourse has historically and presently been dominated by white Western women. That is is how you approached my critique of the feminist movement, along with every single other minority feminist and Western feminist out there.
And I think that is the central basis of your anger about this thread. Your privilege is being questioned and critiqued.
You and others carry on about the dangers of religious ideology, blah blah blah. You're so busy running around trying to spit on the fire to try to put it out that you failed to notice the giant fire hose floating in front of your nose. It's hysterical. Instead, it is all about you and how you are being maligned by a comment aimed at sciforums atheists.. So it became about you. You felt insulted and continue to feel insulted. And as is often the case with you, when I point out the inherent dangers and how atheists have failed, it became about race, about how I, the coloured woman, wants your white male head on a pike. As I said, you are the epitome of the "Freedom fries" movement. You are incapable of seeing anything outside of 'Murica. You cannot even understand or grasp what has been happening in the last 10 years. Do you honestly think that if all theists or religionists are as you and others try to portray them in this thread, that gays would be allowed to marry? That women would even be allowed to vote in the West? Think about it. No, really, actually think about it.
The majority of the rights we have and that we continue to fight for are only obtained when theists help us vote, support court challenges, etc, in court.
You are quick to whine and complain when fundamentalist atheists are critiqued. You complain that we are all being tarred with the same broad brush. But that is exactly what you do to theists. The very theists that have fought for civil rights (which we would not have without them), you abuse and insult for being not on the side of reason and all the moronic and idiotic things you have come out with in this thread.
Atheism will fail if it becomes like the very thing it detests.. evangelical.
And many of you are.
You are Jaime, whether you want to admit it or not. The very arguments you have whined about are identical to Jaime's argument. And you are not the only one. You need to win. You need to be right. Anyone who dares critique you or your ideology is against you and immoral and wrong.
You want to understand the feminist movement? Then get a clue, read some books, do some research before you make even more stupid comments about things even you admitted you know very little about. You were too interested in jumping on the word "white".
You don't want to win? So what are you doing? You want to bring reason to the masses? You want the populace to embrace scientific reasoning instead of relying on mythical Gods? Then stop treating them as if they are stupid.
As I said, you want to make an actual difference? Then put your money where your mouth is and help the poor. You'll make a greater impact in helping them embrace reason and science instead of insulting them for their religious beliefs as they starve to death. But no, to point that out is racist, isn't it?
But that's not why you are here, is it? You are here just reacting, as you always do.
Tig Coili
And here we come to the central point.
This is a question I've been 'round and 'round on. And, frankly, my atheistic neighbors are of no help in this issue.
What it comes down to is this:
And I don't think that argument really helps anyone.
It is important for religious people to understand that there is an abstract objective morality.
We don't know what it is, but like any scientific endeavor, we're not going to figure it out unless we try. Functionally speaking, religious arguments about abortion and The Gay would carry a lot more weight if the species was struggling to survive. But our biggest challenge, as a species, is overpopulation compared to our resource acquisition and distribution systems. The socialist projections of fifty billion might be a little high, but the fact is that the planet can support a lot more than humans have demanded of it; we just need to demand a little less as we go. Big deal. So it's probably not a wise idea to drive my brother's old Fairlane with a 351. But I'll tell you this much: It was a fun car.
When I was in the Islands a few years back, I noticed a few things that were old-fashioned, and marveled at those that were really, really new. That is to say, the slightly stinky—but otherwise clean—toilet in the B&B in Stratford-On-Avon was not unexpected. But the hotels? They were so American it was silly. I remember chuckling in Dublin that no proper Irishman would live this way.
To the upside, the Shelbourne Dublin was a fine hotel. I can just imagine Éamon de Valera showering in such luxury.
I suppose the point there is that as much as I enjoyed Ireland, it is hard to imagine that this was what the Revolutionaries were aiming for.
And you'd still be amazed at the effort it took to find a laundrette in Edinburgh that was open on a Sunday.
Oh, right. Humanity. Look, the cricket pitches were fine symobols of human society, but not necessarily the best examples of civilized progress. Then again, I'm the one person I know who's ever been chewed out for helping a woman in a wheelchair. Couldn't have had that experience without being an American in Galway.
And, frankly, I don't give a damn. It was a lovely walk and compelling conversation with an Irish woman who happened to be really, really dark of skin and bearing the facial features of someone who came in from elsewhere in the former British Empire. Was she Catholic? Protestant? Hindu? I really, honestly, truly don't care. That lovely spirit of Ireland entirely collapsed when my travel companions reminded me vociferously that I was an American, and we just don't do that sort of thing for people.
Interestingly enough, those were two atheists and a self-professed Christian. Which would otherwise be an entirely useless point. I would suggest that, on that day, "American" was the functionally important label. What I did apparently offended those sensibilities, not any Christian or atheistic outlook. Any religious argument focusing on the Christian mother who fretted about her three-sheeted son wandering around a strange city in a foreign nation is wrongly oriented. The objections weren't about Christianity or atheistic customs, but, rather, several Americans wandering around Galway, including the presupposition that we are inherently too stupid to figure out how to get from point A (where a disabled woman needed to be) to point B (the pub).
Bells said:
And here we come to the central point.
This is a question I've been 'round and 'round on. And, frankly, my atheistic neighbors are of no help in this issue.
What it comes down to is this:
I am an atheist. I reject religion because it is irrational. But, hey, religion is the important thing, so if you want to be irrational, just do it in a way that isn't religious.
And I don't think that argument really helps anyone.
It is important for religious people to understand that there is an abstract objective morality.
We don't know what it is, but like any scientific endeavor, we're not going to figure it out unless we try. Functionally speaking, religious arguments about abortion and The Gay would carry a lot more weight if the species was struggling to survive. But our biggest challenge, as a species, is overpopulation compared to our resource acquisition and distribution systems. The socialist projections of fifty billion might be a little high, but the fact is that the planet can support a lot more than humans have demanded of it; we just need to demand a little less as we go. Big deal. So it's probably not a wise idea to drive my brother's old Fairlane with a 351. But I'll tell you this much: It was a fun car.
When I was in the Islands a few years back, I noticed a few things that were old-fashioned, and marveled at those that were really, really new. That is to say, the slightly stinky—but otherwise clean—toilet in the B&B in Stratford-On-Avon was not unexpected. But the hotels? They were so American it was silly. I remember chuckling in Dublin that no proper Irishman would live this way.
To the upside, the Shelbourne Dublin was a fine hotel. I can just imagine Éamon de Valera showering in such luxury.
I suppose the point there is that as much as I enjoyed Ireland, it is hard to imagine that this was what the Revolutionaries were aiming for.
And you'd still be amazed at the effort it took to find a laundrette in Edinburgh that was open on a Sunday.
Oh, right. Humanity. Look, the cricket pitches were fine symobols of human society, but not necessarily the best examples of civilized progress. Then again, I'm the one person I know who's ever been chewed out for helping a woman in a wheelchair. Couldn't have had that experience without being an American in Galway.
And, frankly, I don't give a damn. It was a lovely walk and compelling conversation with an Irish woman who happened to be really, really dark of skin and bearing the facial features of someone who came in from elsewhere in the former British Empire. Was she Catholic? Protestant? Hindu? I really, honestly, truly don't care. That lovely spirit of Ireland entirely collapsed when my travel companions reminded me vociferously that I was an American, and we just don't do that sort of thing for people.
Interestingly enough, those were two atheists and a self-professed Christian. Which would otherwise be an entirely useless point. I would suggest that, on that day, "American" was the functionally important label. What I did apparently offended those sensibilities, not any Christian or atheistic outlook. Any religious argument focusing on the Christian mother who fretted about her three-sheeted son wandering around a strange city in a foreign nation is wrongly oriented. The objections weren't about Christianity or atheistic customs, but, rather, several Americans wandering around Galway, including the presupposition that we are inherently too stupid to figure out how to get from point A (where a disabled woman needed to be) to point B (the pub).
The evidence speaks to the contrary. Did you not ask me where the women in the atheist movement were? See, you simply assumed that atheism was a boy's club, because in your man-hating, white-hating brain, you conceptualize anything you don't understand (and Tiassa pitches a fit about) as fitting that description. You assume it's straight, it's white, and it's male. And you are wrong. That's why when your errors were presented to you--such as by GeoffP, or Aqueous Id--you retreated behind this ridiculous post in which you attempted to create a smokescreen. And that's the best you've done, because when I illustrate how wrong you are about atheism and atheists, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Sometimes, as in the case with AI's posts, you don't even respond.
So, again, I think it's pretty clear that you're the one who has no clue.
The one in which you described whiteness as being endemic of the problem. A point, mind you, that you haven't shied away from: calling me "privileged" is simply a slur for white.
You were wholly ignorant of that subject, as well, it should be noted.
If you could cite me an example of that, I'd be more than willing to discuss it. But you won't, because you can't. All you have accusations, with no supporting citation. You're trying to portray me as angry, as privileged, and that I'm angry about that privilege being critiqued. But all I see is a bunch of strawmen being constructed--I see efforts to combat the encroachment of religious fundamentalism in public policy being referred to as "militant atheism," and that's about as specific as anyone has gotten about it. Everything else is vague insinuation. For example, you keep referring to evangelism and militancy, but you keep failing to provide an example of it. If you want me to address it, then show me.
But, here again we encounter the problem of such examples not existing, which makes it difficult for you to hold up your end of the bargain. Then again, given your posting history, you'll simply ignore these requests for citation and plow on in that entitled manner you do and simply restate your accusations, but with more venom.
It's not about feeling insulted--we were insulted. That was the point of the OP.
But you didn't point out any "inherent" dangers. All you did was say that atheists are behaving just like theists. You claimed that militant atheism was a threat, but you never made clear how it was a threat, or even what militant atheism is. Your racism has already been established, so it wasn't a surprise when it manifested in this thread.
What does that even mean? Do you have a point, aside from your typical America-bashing?
I think you need to think about it...and perhaps write a coherent sentence.
Perfect example of the strawmanning you've been up to. What, exactly, does this have to do with anything? What nonsense have you constructed in your toxic mind that would make you think this is a valid rebuttal to my position?
First of all, to "critique" something is to give a "a detailed analysis and assessment of something," and you'd done nothing of the sort. I mean, let's look at the OP:
Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?
And it's been all downhill from there.
Secondly, what is a "fundamentalist atheist?"
Can you cite me an example of me doing that?
Again, you only demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. You honestly think evangelism is "the very thing" atheism detests?
Of course you do. You literally know nothing about this subject. I shouldn't be surprised to see you say something so utterly ridiculous. I mean, you did ask me "Where are the women," so this is nothing.
So, as an atheist, Bells, evangelism is what you hate? That's the core of it?
Evangelical? Yeah, of course. Christopher Hitchens spent the last years of his life evangelizing secular morality. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, someone you didn't even know existed until an hour ago, evangelizes the secular movement. Some things need to be evangelized. Would you not evangelize women's rights? Or rights of racial and ethnic minorities? I sure would.
¿Couldn't See That One Coming?
It is utterly inappropriate to compare atheism to a science, since its obligation to rational argument stops at the assertion that there is no God.
If you're a physicist—or not, as reality happens to work—physics don't stop when you're out playing catch with your kid.
If you're an atheist, though, at least according to our cohort here, atheism stops when you aren't asserting atheism. You know, that rationality? No obligation. Atheism is a privilege people claim for themselves. Sure, it's a rational argument against the existence of God, but why the fuck does it matter if God exists or not if we're still drowning in irrationality?
Balerion said:
It is utterly inappropriate to compare atheism to a science, since its obligation to rational argument stops at the assertion that there is no God.
If you're a physicist—or not, as reality happens to work—physics don't stop when you're out playing catch with your kid.
If you're an atheist, though, at least according to our cohort here, atheism stops when you aren't asserting atheism. You know, that rationality? No obligation. Atheism is a privilege people claim for themselves. Sure, it's a rational argument against the existence of God, but why the fuck does it matter if God exists or not if we're still drowning in irrationality?
My hatred of what?
Tiassa said:
Irony.
A strawman. I mean, whatever might be called an "atheist movement" (which is in every case better defined as something else--a secular movement, a humanist movement, a civil rights movement) does not do the things you are accusing it of doing. Some atheists can do it, of course, but you can't define a movement by an individual--one who, by the way, probably isn't a part of any movement of any kind, in the same way a fundamentalist Christian on sciforums probably isn't actively campaigning in any meaningful sense. So, yeah, I think it's a strawman.
What do you mean by "fundamentally?"
What the fuck are you talking about? Hitler saw Jews as a race, not a religious group. And going after a religious group is not why he and his Nazis are considered evil. They are considered evil because they persecuted, tortured, starved, imprisoned, and murdered millions who were guilty of nothing. He'd be considered no less evil had he killed indiscriminately. That his ire was aimed specifically at Jews owes to circumstance; Jewish pogroms in Germany can be traced back at least to the first Crusades.
Christ, T, don't you know anything about anything?
That's an insulting question. It's also a bullshit question.
I'm not comparing atheism to science. I'm comparing cranks to cranks.
Wrong. I am an atheist whether I'm arguing against the existence of God, or out shooting hoops in the park.
Bells
Staff member
Waiiit a minute..
Your defensive ridiculous centric diatribe aside, now you are claiming that Hitler was merely racist and not anti-semitic - ie he hated them for their race and not their religion?
While anti-semitism is now considered a form of racism, do you honestly believe that he did not hate the religious group and just hated the Jewish race?
Wow dude, I've heard some batshit crazy defenses of evangelical atheism, this one takes the cake.
Tell me, did Kristallnacht happen because of race? Or because of religion?
Remembering That There Is No Atheist Movement
Putting Bullshit Where It Belongs
• American Atheists: "Organisation working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism." They're also preparing a convention.
• Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics: Italian movement for twenty-three years.
• Atheist logo: Promoted by Pharyngula.
• British atheists: Raising funds for congregational atheists.
• Atheists United: A Los Angeles group with political, philosophical, and public service missions.
• "The Day the Atheist Movement Died": It would seem that Atheist Revolution would disagree with Sciforums' atheistic cohort; at the very least, there was, until about July, 2011, an atheistic movement. (I have no idea what the author is on about; you'll notice the piece never explains Dawkins' offense explicitly; apparently, as of December, 2013, everyone is supposed to be in the know on whatever Dawkins did wrong.)
• Skeptic Ink: On the "Growth of the Atheist Movement".
And on, and on, and on.
Can we put this bullshit about there being no atheistic "movement" to rest, now?
Or, at least, if we are to recognize "atheists" as any sort of common plural, can they we at least get some agreement on what that body is and means?
I'm sorry, but I don't see why "atheism" gets that sort of privilege. If there is no solidarity, then there is no solidarity. Rationally speaking, you can't have it both ways.
Really?
Is it atheism that makes you think that's a useful question? Or is it just trolling that has nothing at all to do with atheism?
Certes, pick a definition: Of central importance? Of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts? Belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics?
Really? This is hard?
That is to say, do you really need an obscure argument to explain that the Nazis were wrong? Or is killing six million people for the sake of a label self-explanatory? You know, prima facie? Self-evident?
For instance, if a dictator was to wipe out all the atheists, would it take a particularly complex and esoteric ethical argument to establish why this is the wrong thing to do? Seriously, where is the gray zone on killing millions of human beings for the sake of a label?
Funny, that. Economic systems that kill millions for the sake of a few wealthy people are lauded in this day and age. We put the National Socialists on trial for actions resulting from their ideology. When are we going to do the same to the Capitalists? And they won't even have the Nuremberg Defense.
Your argument, on this point, is not supported by the historical record available to us. But, hey, it's not like you have any obligation to be rational, right?
As far as I'm concerned, stupidity is stupidity is stupidity. The only difference in classifications such as theist or atheist is a matter of prescribed solution. Kind of like the question of antiviral or antibacterial; it makes no sense to take azythromycin for a cold. Really, if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters why they are doing so is to address the specific problem.
Putting Bullshit Where It Belongs
Balerion said:
• American Atheists: "Organisation working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism." They're also preparing a convention.
• Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics: Italian movement for twenty-three years.
• Atheist logo: Promoted by Pharyngula.
• British atheists: Raising funds for congregational atheists.
• Atheists United: A Los Angeles group with political, philosophical, and public service missions.
• "The Day the Atheist Movement Died": It would seem that Atheist Revolution would disagree with Sciforums' atheistic cohort; at the very least, there was, until about July, 2011, an atheistic movement. (I have no idea what the author is on about; you'll notice the piece never explains Dawkins' offense explicitly; apparently, as of December, 2013, everyone is supposed to be in the know on whatever Dawkins did wrong.)
• Skeptic Ink: On the "Growth of the Atheist Movement".
And on, and on, and on.
Can we put this bullshit about there being no atheistic "movement" to rest, now?
Or, at least, if we are to recognize "atheists" as any sort of common plural, can they we at least get some agreement on what that body is and means?
I'm sorry, but I don't see why "atheism" gets that sort of privilege. If there is no solidarity, then there is no solidarity. Rationally speaking, you can't have it both ways.
Really?
Is it atheism that makes you think that's a useful question? Or is it just trolling that has nothing at all to do with atheism?
Certes, pick a definition: Of central importance? Of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts? Belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics?
Really? This is hard?
That is to say, do you really need an obscure argument to explain that the Nazis were wrong? Or is killing six million people for the sake of a label self-explanatory? You know, prima facie? Self-evident?
For instance, if a dictator was to wipe out all the atheists, would it take a particularly complex and esoteric ethical argument to establish why this is the wrong thing to do? Seriously, where is the gray zone on killing millions of human beings for the sake of a label?
Funny, that. Economic systems that kill millions for the sake of a few wealthy people are lauded in this day and age. We put the National Socialists on trial for actions resulting from their ideology. When are we going to do the same to the Capitalists? And they won't even have the Nuremberg Defense.
Your argument, on this point, is not supported by the historical record available to us. But, hey, it's not like you have any obligation to be rational, right?
As far as I'm concerned, stupidity is stupidity is stupidity. The only difference in classifications such as theist or atheist is a matter of prescribed solution. Kind of like the question of antiviral or antibacterial; it makes no sense to take azythromycin for a cold. Really, if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters why they are doing so is to address the specific problem.
Bells
Staff member
Fundamentalism is political Yazata. That is what I am talking about specifically and no I will not be like Yoda about my stance on this sect of Christianity.I have made myself clear about personal spirituality or philosophy . I will get back to this later.....have an appt.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
As I noted about six pages back:
- A. Communism cannot be blamed on atheism because it is an offshoot of Christianity. Marx was a devout Christian, and his slogan, "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," is an elaboration of a line from the Book of Acts. Communism is a fairy-tale economic "system," pretending that an economy can thrive if what a man takes from it need not correlate with what he gives back. The entire Soviet bloc ultimately collapsed for that very reason. Communism produces a negative surplus, so after they squandered the surplus left over from the previous government, and then annexed all of the neighboring countries and squandered their leftover surplus, (with the USA happily goading them into spending a preposterous percentage of their GDP on defense), the entire quasi-Christian fairytale imploded.
- B. The League of Militant Atheists was a creation of the Communist Party, like so many of the "movements" under Lenin and Stalin. (Compare it to Nazi "volunteer" organizations like the Hitler Youth.) The fact that many Jews joined the Party is due entirely to their (rather vain) hope that the Communists would treat them better than the Czars did.
- C. The Communists regarded the Church as their only real domestic competition. They did their best to reduce its power, while leaving a weakened institution in place to keep the populace happy.
- Status