A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Tiassa]

On Indictment and Solution

Now, if I read Tiassa's somewhat strangely constructed sentence ....

I don't think you're too far off with your analysis.

Let us start with an example. Consider, please, a biblical argument for gay rights. In truth, I'm a lot more likely to win that argument than successfully harangue someone into abandoning their faith. In the end, it's a functional thing. Am I seeking harm reduction, or eradication?

And, yeah, on the gay rights count, we just won. Doesn't mean people are abandoning their faith, but we won on straightforward logic. And look at how badly the traditionalists are reacting. There's plenty of sport and self-gratification in knocking the bigots for bigotry, but how will they feel if they pass one of these pro-discrimination laws and suddenly find themselves refused service for, say, wearing a gold cross around one's neck? Therein we find the best path for fending off this silly movement. And the business community? They came through: If you want to hurt our employees so badly, we'll just pack up and go elsewhere. No amount of badmouthing the bigots will change their mind, no matter how much we enjoy it. Put a big enough stake—a real stake, that is—on the table, and some will come around; the brief remarks explaining her veto were probably the best Governor Brewer has spoken in her public service.

But, then, there is the Hobby Lobby. Calling Steve Green and his cohort a bunch of hypocrites is certainly fair, given the circumstances, but that sort of rhetoric only goes so far; the diminishing return is a steep decline.

Still, though, if one's misogyny is derived from their biblical beliefs, it's well enough to challenge them on those points. If one's misogyny has no specific religious pedigree, it's probably better to skip the condemnations of religious misogyny in addressing the issues.

If all we seek is to indict, indict, indict, well, certes 'tis easy enough. But if we seek progress toward solutions, that's a little trickier.

And this can be problematic for atheists, who tend to identify religion according to its lowest qualities. Evangelical Christianity is certainly problematic in the American political discourse, but a Psy.D. ought not be prerequisite for understanding why others might resent being so classified. To wit, while not all Jesuits are necessarily brilliant scholars, no, they don't meet the criteria by which I might indict evangelical Protestantism or witless megachurches. Generally speaking, if I intend to indict Jesuits, I'd better be more prepared than, say, dealing with my daughter's maternal grandmother, who really does seem to have the intellect of a child. No, I mean, really. Her devotional studies come from a Children's Bible (really) and "Bible paraphrases", which are about as bad an idea as can be. (The Clear Word, by Jack J. Blanco, asserts in its narrative that the fall of man at Eden was according to God's plan.)

Tailoring the discourse as such can work both ways. To wit, I have yet to come up with a reasonable path for dealing an atheist who thinks there's moral ambiguity about mass murder. And there really is no useful prescription when that person isn't fighting for principle, but just to pick a fight. Practically speaking, irrationality is irrationality. The source of irrationality becomes important in seeking solutions, but in no way makes any given irrationality more or less acceptable than any other.

 

[spidergoat]

The problem with making the Biblical argument for gay rights, is that there always remains a biblical argument against it. Why are we giving the Bible such credibility in the first place?

 

[GeoffP]

I don't think you're too far off with your analysis.

Yes but you missed the sarcasm within.

Let's again be frank: no, not all theism - possibly not even a majority of what one calls theism, and almost certainly not the averaged individual experience of it - is negative. There is a point at which criticism is excessive, and even bigoted. Unfortunately, you chose to call out what you call bigotry by indicting SF atheists ensemble. That is another form of bigotry, and a pointless one. It is in violation of SF rules which are apparently very temperamental beasts: they biteth on the left and not the right. That is unfair, and unacceptable.

Where shall I find the inception of this ambiguity about mass murder?

 

[Balerion]

Excuse me, Tiassa, but you'll need to show me exactly where I said there was a moral ambiguity about mass murder. You have 24 hours.

 

[Balerion]

Have to concord with Balerion. I disagree here though:





Now, if I read Tiassa's somewhat strangely constructed sentence, he means that the only reason that we should care why people behave like idiots is in pursuit of the solution to the problem they are being idiots about. I think. Balerion disagrees, but I think Tiassa might have stumbled on something here: wouldn't it be more efficient to correct the essential source of the idiocy? That's as I read his statement, anyway. Maybe I'm not reading it right; the syntax is doing me bloody 'ead in.

My assumption of this interpretation is based on my supposition that he meant to write if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters to us why they are doing so is in relation to the specific problem. But doesn't that contradict with his above statement that the kind of stupidity doesn't really matter? Surely, if one is being stupid in relation to some cause, doesn't that also imply a source for that stupidity; which is to say, in relation to the problem based on a personal belief? It's causative, isn't it? Or it's implied causation. Some issues are just not going to generate the same number of idiotic comments, and we have to be cognisant of that fact. Or it really is source-dependent: say, for example, one had a weak association with a meme that riddled one with subconscious elements of guilt for some reason or other. And let's say that another person did or was considered to have insulted that parent meme. Might that not have a decent chance of generating an absurd reaction from the first person? Say they lashed out with a kind of ridiculous generalisation or something. Not all positions generate the same levels of stupidity, that's all I'm saying.

That response was more to the second line in the passage: "The only difference in classifications such as theist or atheist is a matter of prescribed solution."

Kind of sad that you answered more of the post than he did. I'm used to Bells taking the chicken-shit approach of ignoring entire posts, but this is a new tactic for our extremist friend. Well, new in the sense of "He's only done it in this thread," anyway; he ignored Aqueous Id's crushing posts, as well.

 

[leopold]

It's not one law, but a body of laws, culminating in the 1962 decision to ban school prayer.

oh my, you must be proud.
the really bad part is that i agree with it.
religious practices do not belong in schools, but i only say that in the interest of equal time.
by the time each religion has its little prayer ceremony it'll be time to board the buses.
so, is the baptism illegal?
no, but it also has no place on a uni campus or ANY place of serious learning.
on the other hand atheists should not be allowed to say "god doesn't exist".
what do you think, are you on the side of fairness?

3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

any law congress makes in this regard is going to cause "excessive entanglement".

 

[Bells]

So you object to what you perceive as atheists being above reproach. But not other groups, then? Weird.

Not at all.

The issue here is that atheists as individuals believe they are a group, aligned by our disbelief in God. The answer to that is no. I, as an atheist, am in no way aligned with Balerion, for example. Just because he is an atheist does not mean that as an atheist, I am somehow on the same side as he is. The only thing we may have in common is that we don't believe in God. It's akin to a common liking the colour blue.

However atheists, on this site in particular, have taken our atheism and we seem to believe that we are a group and thus, must act like a group.

I'll put it another way.. Atheists were never in the job of conversion. And yet, on this site and in many areas of the public and private sphere, we have become just that. Just because we are atheists does not mean we are always right and it does not mean that our collective lack of belief makes us a group and it does not mean that we are above reproach and never worthy of criticism for our actions. Scratch that, it should not mean that our collective lack of belief makes us a group and it should not mean that if we act like a group that we are somehow different to any other group and thus, above reproach or never worthy of criticism.

And that's what people aren't getting here. Our actions have become like that of a collective and we all get riled up if we are criticised for acting like a group. Which is exactly what is happening here. We are quick to attack religious groups as a whole, but we get offended when we are criticised as a group? We act like a group on this site.. Just look at this thread as a prime example.. It's this level of hypocrisy that is somewhat nauseating. There is no atheist code. So perhaps all of us atheists should stop acting as if there is and then getting offended if people treat us as if there is.

I see - and all atheists did this, of course. This was "their movement" at work, naturally. Listen, in the old days, before I'd been in some of the arguments on here, I might have let what you and Tiassa are doing alone: just centralised criticism, nonspecific for... whatever reason. The day is long, people are tired. But that's not the way we roll on SF, is it? Shit, even the assertion that you're doing that, somehow, is enough to get a banning aimed at you. So while I sympathise with what you two are up to in a weird way that embarrasses me, on the practical, real front I don't. This shit is enough for a banning and would be in other circumstances.

The point is, this is what we are becoming.

Look at Q's response to the issue. He doesn't care that some poor kids in a 3rd world country were denied some joy or happiness. No, really, that's what it came down to. That group could very well have done something about it to prevent 'religion' from being fed to the kids. Instead, they chose to simply refuse to alleviate the suffering of poor children in 3rd world countries. But to Q, the issue was black and white. Because it was a religious group organising the toy drive through a public school, then it automatically became an issue of Church and State. Okay. Fine.

But since when did we become this heartless?

And that's my personal gripe with the movement we have become.

Since when did we become such heartless bastards that taking toys out of a poor kid's hands was acceptable for political reasons?

Is this what we want atheism to be about?

As in: the fight by the Church against birth control in their new constituents. This is general to Africa, but while you're describing a specific scenario, population pressure is not helping and has been a thorn in the side of the developing continent. We could fan this sucker out to HIV - actually, hell yes, let's do exactly that. No rubbers isn't helping that shit, either, and it's this kind of blind influence of absurd theological supposition (there's that phrase again, now it's in the zeitgeist) about reproduction and religion's role in it that's hurting them. But why would you link up 'God's hand' with 'supposition'? Is it God's supposition, somehow?

You can thank George Bush for that, since I think he may have started it.

The Bush Administration has often tied family planning to foreign aid policies. Since 2002, the Bush Administration has supported a Global Gag Rule that denies international aid to any group involved in abortion-related activity. Organizations that do not comply are not eligible for U.S.-donated contraceptives, including condoms.

Other administration policies include the 2003 $15 billion pledge to combat AIDS in Africa required that the funds be used for abstinence-only programs. Condom use was only to be promoted amongst high risk individuals, including trucker drivers and sex workers. The impact of the policy was felt worldwide.

For example, Uganda had extensive health education programs, which reduced HIV/AIDs cases in adults from 15 percent in 1992 to six percent in 2004. However, after the pledge was passed, these successful programs were cut back in favor of abstinence-only programs. Condom ads were replaced with virginity ads; some condoms were actually recalled. In the first two years that the program was enacted, rates of HIV infections doubled.2
​

You don't need to tell me of the struggles against the Catholic Church and now right wing American Christian fundamentalists in developing countries. I have donated countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more over the years to try to educate men and women and children and to help provide reproductive health care, from condoms to providing safe abortions for women who need it.

You want to combat that influence and provide reproductive health care to women and men in 3rd world countries? Then support (vocal support, written support, don't vote for politicians who wish to curtail women's right to choose and defend some of these organisations as a result, whatever you choose) Planned Parenthood and other NGO's like Marie Stopes International that will allow them to purchase the contraceptive drugs for women, not to mention help provide safe abortions and condoms for men.

There are so many ways to change. Whining that someone dared to criticise atheists isn't going to cut it. Just think, if all those atheists put their time and effort to good use, like educating themselves about how to reduce the effects of religious organisations in 3rd world countries, think of how much of a change that would have made? Nah, better to be collectively offended that a fellow atheists criticised "atheist". The collective must never be criticised!

Fucking atheists. Just look what they're doing! Oh, right. Never mind.

Hur hur..

Is that the point of this thread? I thought we were castigating atheists... or maybe castrating them. Which is it you want to do? Maybe you should set up another thread.

Don't you think one thread full of atheists and their fan boys and girls (like theists who don't know if they are theists or atheists for example) whining that someone dared to criticise "atheists" is enough? Now you want me to start a thread so they can whine about 'we don't need to be fixed'?

I think I'd rather put an ice pick in my eyeballs.

Of course! That's surely the entirety of my premise. No, no: no need to ask me further and 'larnify' yourself. Just make an assertion and stick to it.

We really need to chat about your hick speak.

Correct! Strangely, this smacks of a post I made above that you didn't read. Let me know if you don't read this one. I’ll get started on the unread rebuttal to the points that I didn’t make. Nihilism, pfft.

I possibly did not read it. My apologies. Here I thought you were a blinkered horse, neighing to the wind because you thought the collective were being maligned.

But you just said that I solved Africa's problems in, like, three sentences. Surely that's worth some cash! What the hell do I have to do to impress you people?

Do you really want me to go into that?

Ha! Tiassa knows better than to sniff that bullshit:

Because we act like it is.

You tell her, T!

As above..

Owp!

As above..

I'm going to keep on doing what I've been doing, exactly as I've been doing it.

So you're just going to keep complaining then?

Well you missed the part where two authors described it as misogynistic process outside their direct control: as in, media. And this seems very likely to me, too. I think they're right.

Of course they are. And the media whores that currently represent and embarrass atheists world wide would not have it any other way..

Oh. Is that women's rights or ethics? Toughie. Who shall decide?

(I might add that this thread is not about that, or about me, but I can understand your impish fascination with my opinions. It's a natch.)

Unbelievable.

If you are going to even mention women's rights and religion and how atheists are more supportive of women's rights, then really, this should be a no brainer.

One of the biggest issues facing women's rights is the intrusion of religious beliefs in their ability to access reproductive health care, which includes abortions. In the US, at the very least and as an example, women are being denied this level of care because of the religious beliefs of politicians. Women's lives are being put at risk in Catholic owned and run hospitals, when they miscarry, for example, because doctors who work there are not allowed to operate or treat the woman if there is still a foetal heartbeat.

So when you cite women's rights, abortion is at the forefront of women's rights and the fight against religious intrusion in women's rights and their ability to access safe and legal abortions.

So unless you support a woman's right to choose, then please, don't be a hypocrite and jump on the women's rights bandwagon when you can't even decide if abortion is a women's rights issue or ethics. And who shall decide? Really GeoffP? The woman gets to decide.

---

What makes Christians not selfish? Atheist offerings are refused all the time.

What would you have us do, Bells?

Do you want us to fast? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?

"We" who?

Who is this "We" of which you speak? There is no "we".

As an atheist, you do what you think is right. But the problem is that we have become "we".

And human beings are inherently selfish. To complain when someone points this out because 'we're atheists'.. It's a human condition. Some suffer from it more than others.

---

Let's look at the facts from the article you linked rather than creating a strawman. This is not about poor kids getting no toys for Christmas, this is about separation of church and state:


“It is a clear constitutional violation for administrators of a public school to push students to participate in a proselytizing religious program,” attorney Monica Miller said. “Students at East Point Academy should not be used like this.”

Of course.

And taking toys from poor children in third world countries at Christmas is the way to go about combating religious intrusion in public life. It's a great way to stop the incursion of religious organisations in those countries.

They should also set about to making sure organisations like Saint Vinnie's (in Australia at least) stop with their asking people for money for the poor and their Christmas toy drives in public areas (in Australia at least).. You know, in the name of Separation of Church and State and all and using public foot paths to do this in..

Onward atheist soldier...

As a hint.. When the battle has gotten to taking toys from poor kids at Christmas for political reasons, then 'we're' doing it wrong.

 

[(Q)]

Of course.

And taking toys from poor children in third world countries at Christmas is the way to go about combating religious intrusion in public life. It's a great way to stop the incursion of religious organisations in those countries.

Ah, I see how you're going to play your hand, ignore the problem and make up Motherhood statements. Obviously, it is pointless getting through to you.

They should also set about to making sure organisations like Saint Vinnie's (in Australia at least) stop with their asking people for money for the poor and their Christmas toy drives in public areas (in Australia at least).. You know, in the name of Separation of Church and State and all and using public foot paths to do this in..

Onward atheist soldier...

As a hint.. When the battle has gotten to taking toys from poor kids at Christmas for political reasons, then 'we're' doing it wrong.

Gibberish rant.

 

[Balerion]

Ah, I see how you're going to play your hand, ignore the problem and make up Motherhood statements. Obviously, it is pointless getting through to you.



Gibberish rant.

She's not even replying to the most salient arguments against her ridiculous position. And when she replies directly to posts, it's all vague insinuation and non-sequiturs.

 

[spidergoat]

oh my, you must be proud.
the really bad part is that i agree with it.
religious practices do not belong in schools, but i only say that in the interest of equal time.
by the time each religion has its little prayer ceremony it'll be time to board the buses.
so, is the baptism illegal?
no, but it also has no place on a uni campus or ANY place of serious learning.
on the other hand atheists should not be allowed to say "god doesn't exist".
what do you think, are you on the side of fairness?

any law congress makes in this regard is going to cause "excessive entanglement".

Students can say anything they like, they are not government employees.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The problem with making the Biblical argument for gay rights, is that there always remains a biblical argument against it. Why are we giving the Bible such credibility in the first place?

Because everybody else does. We're a rather small and not very well-respected minority. If we want to communicate with people we have to follow their rules.

The issue here is that atheists as individuals believe they are a group, aligned by our disbelief in God. The answer to that is no. I, as an atheist, am in no way aligned with Balerion, for example. Just because he is an atheist does not mean that as an atheist, I am somehow on the same side as he is. The only thing we may have in common is that we don't believe in God. It's akin to a common liking the colour blue.

Religion has a very strong social dimension. Irreligion does not.

However atheists, on this site in particular, have taken our atheism and we seem to believe that we are a group and thus, must act like a group.

That can happen when you're beleaguered.

And that's what people aren't getting here. Our actions have become like that of a collective and we all get riled up if we are criticised for acting like a group.

But it is they who made us a collective. They have a louder voice and they assume that any people who share a particular attitude about supernaturalism must be a group because they are. They make the rules and because they vastly outnumber us and occupy most of the positions of power, we have no choice but to observe those rules.

Which is exactly what is happening here. We are quick to attack religious groups as a whole, but we get offended when we are criticised as a group?

Speak for yourself. I understand this dynamic.

We act like a group on this site.. Just look at this thread as a prime example.. It's this level of hypocrisy that is somewhat nauseating. There is no atheist code. So perhaps all of us atheists should stop acting as if there is and then getting offended if people treat us as if there is.

Whether or not we act that way, we will be perceived that way and treated as though we do.

You seem to forget that the fundamental trait of humanity that makes religion possible and keeps it going is the (perhaps unique) human ability to be irrational. Why should they be any more rational in their dealings with us than they are in their imaginary dealings with invisible creatures from a supernatural universe?

The point is, this is what we are becoming. Look at Q's response to the issue. He doesn't care that some poor kids in a 3rd world country were denied some joy or happiness. No, really, that's what it came down to. That group could very well have done something about it to prevent 'religion' from being fed to the kids. Instead, they chose to simply refuse to alleviate the suffering of poor children in 3rd world countries. But to Q, the issue was black and white. Because it was a religious group organising the toy drive through a public school, then it automatically became an issue of Church and State. Okay. Fine. But since when did we become this heartless?

Speak for yourself, or at most for yourself and Q. I evaluate charities on the basis of the good they are likely to do. I've donated a lot of money to overtly Christian charities because in that narrow aspect of life we were comrades. I don't give them money to build churches, but I sure as hell give them money to save lives after an earthquake.

And that's my personal gripe with the movement we have become.

Again, speak for yourself. I am part of no such movement. I mouth off here because SciForums is basically a place to mouth off. But out in the real world I try to act like a respectable citizen.

Since when did we become such heartless bastards that taking toys out of a poor kid's hands was acceptable for political reasons?

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about! Many churches operate extremely efficient charity drives and I'm proud to contribute. The Salvation Army's bell-ringers with their kettles are ubiquitous at Christmastime and many of the bell-ringers have dropped their jaws when I (apparently) dropped the day's only ten-dollar bill into the kettle.

Is this what we want atheism to be about?

No, and I never said I did.

The Bush Administration has often tied family planning to foreign aid policies. Since 2002, the Bush Administration has supported a Global Gag Rule that denies international aid to any group involved in abortion-related activity. Organizations that do not comply are not eligible for U.S.-donated contraceptives, including condoms.

This may come as a shock to you, but Christians are not the only people who are uncomfortable with the concept of abortion. . . .

Other administration policies include the 2003 $15 billion pledge to combat AIDS in Africa required that the funds be used for abstinence-only programs. Condom use was only to be promoted amongst high risk individuals, including trucker drivers and sex workers. The impact of the policy was felt worldwide.

. . . . or extramarital sexual relations. In fact, at least in the USA and surely in your country, a great many of them are tolerant of abortion (if not supportive) and rather enthusiastic about extramarital relations.

Don't you think one thread full of atheists and their fan boys and girls (like theists who don't know if they are theists or atheists for example) whining that someone dared to criticise "atheists" is enough? Now you want me to start a thread so they can whine about 'we don't need to be fixed'?

This is SciForums. Most of our members are immature, either chronologically or emotionally or both. Whining is just what they do.

As a hint.. When the battle has gotten to taking toys from poor kids at Christmas for political reasons, then 'we're' doing it wrong.

I suppose then that I'm glad not to be a member of this "we" of which you speak.

I now understand why so many people used to say things like "Some of my best friends are negroes/Jews/Mexicans/Japanese/whatever." Some of my best friends are Christians.

 

[spidergoat]

Because everybody else does. We're a rather small and not very well-respected minority. If we want to communicate with people we have to follow their rules.

It's not my job to interpret the Bible. Doing so gives it more credibility than it deserves. And it's full of nasty ideas.

Religion has a very strong social dimension. Irreligion does not.

There are all sorts of social institutions that have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Bells]

Ah, I see how you're going to play your hand, ignore the problem and make up Motherhood statements. Obviously, it is pointless getting through to you.

How do you think it is perceived by the public and by the people those gifts would have been going to?

Attacking my 'motherhood' aside that is, how do you think that is perceived? How do you think it was received?

Do you actually think it placed atheism in a positive light at all?

Gibberish rant.

Which is pretty much the response I expect from fan-boys like you.

---

I would offer that the unwillingness to surrender to propaganda is tantamount to unselfishness. For example, religions tend to promote the most selfish of ideas imaginable: that I will live forever in bliss and you will burn forever in hell. That's of course only one variation on a theme, but it covers a huge population.

As I noted to Trooper, human beings are inherently selfish, some more than others.

We do what we think is to our benefit. Religious altruism, and I have made this argument many times in the past, is not done because they want to help. It is also done because to them, it also curries favours with their respective deity of choice. So in a way, it is forced.

My mother is a prime example. She knows I am an atheist. She fell very ill and nearly died last year. I was there when it happened. As we scrambled to keep her alive and care for her, she looked me in the eyes and told me that I would be blessed for helping her, that God would repay me for this. She thought she was dying, we all thought she was dying. But that kind of thing is ingrained. I was helping her because she is my mother and I did not want her to die and also because as a fellow human being, one does not just sit idly by and let someone suffer like that. When she was stabilised in the hospital and able to speak coherently, I would spend every moment of visiting hours with her. It was a terrible scare. And she kept telling me that God would repay me for my kindness in helping her and my father and her family overseas through the double tragedy it had just suffered. And I have to admit, it struck me. I wasn't helping her grieve for the loss of her brother and helping care for her after she collapsed when she heard that he had died out of the blue because of a blessing from her God. I was doing it because I adore her more than life. So it is kind of ingrained for her. She couldn't help it.

I know my mother and I have seen her do some extraordinary things for complete strangers and it's not because she thinks it will help her get into heaven. But when it came to me helping her during that devastating evening and in the weeks following, for some reason, she thought I would be blessed for it.

Is it selfish? Is she selfish? We are all selfish, to varying degrees. Some more than others.

My opinion is that reaction to it was emblematic of the religious based xenophobia. Reaction also smacked of incredible stupidity, unaware of how many devout Muslims recoiled in horror during 9/11. Also bearing on this is ignorance of the conflict between Sunni and Shiite religions, as well as the extreme factions of Shiites who were a psychopathic minority. That being said, the conversation over the causes of religious psychopathy have been buried in this thread which I think stems from Tiassa's opening lunges.

I have to admit, the reaction to this thread have been.. spectacular.

As an atheist, did I think he meant me as well? It certainly made me go back and look over some of my arguments of late in this sub-forum and I felt somewhat shamed. I guess every one of us atheist is different. Many took it personally. Many believe that we are always right. Some of us believe we are sometimes wrong.

I don't think it matters too much one way or the other. If the idea to give maximum comfort to the families, then let each family put up its own shrine. I'm conflicted on whether this is a sacred burial ground or something that should have been redeveloped for some other useful purpose--perhaps a hospital.

I think it should be a park. Like a memorial park but also with playground equipment to bring some joy to the site.

I just find the whole argument against that cross and the mosque to be petty and vengeful.

And in many respects, many of us atheists have become petty and vengeful.

Just recently we had a bill to guarantee equal pay for equal work for women shot down by the Religious Right-dominated Republican Party. While this may be local only to the US, it is a clear and present danger to equality of American women. I appreciate your skepticism, but there is another reality, which is the reality of what's happening on the ground. I actually think this is one of Tiassa's (and Yazata's) gaping holes in their posts. Like in the science threads (not that either of them are imbeciles) we see cranks relentlessly arguing against the most basic principles of science--without ever touching on the actual data experimenters have collected, upon which the math and theory is based. Here I see the same thing--and almost contrived disconnect with the empirical reality of religious ideology: it's impact on public policy. Yazata dismissed this, and Tiassa won't bother with facts. Yet even as we speak these facts are unfolding. I don't know what will happen next, but I suspect the atheists will turn out en masse as soon as we have a female candidate for high office. (That is, one who is well qualified, meaning Sarah Palin didn't ever count.)

One of the things that many people have forgotten is that the women's liberation movement were started by religious women. Women would have no rights if it weren't for theists.

And we forget that.

Sadly, the theists have been corrupted and drowned out by the very vocal ultra-conservative religious groups. Just as atheists are being drowned out by the likes of Dwarkin, who frankly as an individual, makes my skin crawl.

I think it's unfair to accuse Tiassa of not bothering with the facts when it comes to the religious right and women's rights. The majority of his threads have been just about that and arguing against the intrusion of the religious right into the political sphere because of how it interferes with women's rights and with the rights of gays and minorities. So I think in reacting to his OP about how he asks his fellow atheists to stop arguing for the sake of arguing and to stop being so offensive, many have forgotten that.

As for atheists turning out en masse when we have a female candidate for high office.. Sexism is alive and well in all corners of society. Atheists and religious skeptics are no different.

It wasn’t until I started talking about feminism to skeptics that I realized I didn’t have a safe space.

When I first got involved with the skeptics, I thought I had found my people—a community that enjoyed educating the public about science and critical thinking. The sense of belonging I felt was akin, I imagine, to what other people feel at church. (I wouldn’t exactly know—like most skeptics, I’m an atheist.) I felt we were doing important work: making a better, more rational world and protecting people from being taken advantage of. At conventions, skeptic speakers and the audience were mostly male, but I figured that was something we could balance out with a bit of hard work and good PR.

Then women started telling me stories about sexism at skeptic events, experiences that made them uncomfortable enough to never return. At first, I wasn’t able to fully understand their feelings as I had never had a problem existing in male-dominated spaces. But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events. And then I made the grave mistake of responding to a fellow skeptic’s YouTube video in which he stated that male circumcision was just as harmful as female genital mutilation (FGM). I replied to say that while I personally am opposed to any non-medical genital mutilation, FGM is often much, much more damaging than male circumcision.

The response from male atheists was overwhelming. This is one example:

“honestly, and i mean HONESTLY.. you deserve to be raped and tortured and killed. swear id laugh if i could”​

I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst.

Thinking the solution was to educate the community, I started giving talks about the areas where feminism and skepticism overlap. I encouraged audiences to get involved with issues like ending FGM, fighting the anti-woman pseudoscience of the religious right, and aiding those branded as “witches” in rural African villages.

In June of 2011, I was on a panel at an atheist conference in Dublin. The topic was “Communicating Atheism,” and I was excited to join Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists in the world, with several documentaries and bestselling books to his name. Dawkins used his time to criticize Phil Plait, an astronomer who the year prior had given a talk in which he argued for skeptics to be kinder. I used my time to talk about what it’s like for me to communicate atheism online, and how being a woman might affect the response I receive, as in rape threats and other sexual comments.

The audience was receptive, and afterward I spent many hours in the hotel bar discussing issues of gender, objectification, and misogyny with other thoughtful atheists. At around 4 a.m., I excused myself, announcing that I was exhausted and heading to bed in preparation for another day of talks.

As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?” I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.

A few days later, I was making a video about the trip and I decided to use that as an example of how not to behave at conferences if you want to make women feel safe and comfortable. After all, it seemed rather obvious to me that if your goal is to get sex or even just companionship, the very worst way to go about attaining that goal is to attend a conference, listen to a woman speak for 12 hours about how uncomfortable she is being sexualized at conferences, wait for her to express a desire to go to sleep, follow her into an isolated space, and then suggest she go back to your hotel room for “coffee,” which, by the way, is available at the hotel bar you just left.

What I said in my video, exactly, was, “Guys, don’t do that,” with a bit of a laugh and a shrug. What legions of angry atheists apparently heard was, “Guys, I won’t stop hating men until I get 2 million YouTube comments calling me a ‘cunt.’ ” The skeptics boldly rose to the imagined challenge.

Even Dawkins weighed in. He hadn’t said anything while sitting next to me in Dublin as I described the treatment I got, but a month later he left this sarcastic comment on a friend’s blog:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard​

Dawkins’ seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape “jokes,” threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page.

​

She then describes and provides the twitter feeds from atheists who threatened to sexually molest her at a next conference she was due to attend. Not only was the man who threatened to sexually molest her allowed to attend the next speaking event, the organisers did nothing to reassure her that she would be safe. Instead, they blamed her and other sexually harassed women at those speaking events for the abuse and sexual harassment she and other women reported because they dared to talk it:

The organizers of the conference, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)—the organization started by the person who first introduced me to skepticism—allowed the man to attend the conference and did nothing to reassure me. I attended anyway and never went anywhere alone. This past year I finally stopped attending TAM when the organizers blamed me and other harassed women in our community for driving women away by talking about our harassment.​

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Amy Davis Roth, an atheist feminist blogger, was forced to move house after her home address was posted on an atheist/skeptic forum for hating women (yes, they exist as well). Rebecca Watson's article then goes on to provide even more horrendous abuse and threats of rape and sexual abuse on atheist women from atheist men who attend these speaking tours or have blogs:

In September, blogger Greta Christina wrote that “when I open my mouth to talk about anything more controversial than Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster recipes or Six More Atheists Who Are Totally Awesome, I can expect a barrage of hatred, abuse, humiliation, death threats, rape threats, and more.” And Jen McCreight stopped blogging and accepting speaking engagements altogether. “I wake up every morning to abusive comments, tweets, and emails about how I’m a slut, prude, ugly, fat, feminazi, retard, bitch, and cunt (just to name a few),” she wrote. “I just can’t take it anymore.”​

So much for enlightened and critical thinking and women's rights, huh?

I agree with you in principle here but I disagree with the facts. In order for the school to change its policy, it had the advice of an attorney (probably the State Attorney General's office). The decision to cancel, then, would arise from the evidence that there was a clear violation.

I'm also leery of media reports that rely on tugging people's heart strings, whereas the bare facts can be simply buried in recrimination.

Let's talk about the harm in this. Was anyone actually hurt, and if so, why? For example, what would stop the neighborhood from organizing an independent toy drive, to carry on the tradition of the school? I suspect they could even do some of it on the school grounds, perhaps under the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). I would have to research this to see what exactly what was at stake.

Decades ago an issue like this cropped up in my neighborhood. The schools simply changed their thems to "Winter Holiday". One of the more bizarre things I saw happen was a movement to try to block monster costumes that kids had traditionally used on Halloween. (Do you have such a tradition?) Quite a few parents resorted to mild characters, like cartoon characters, to keep their kids from dressing up as monsters. The scariest part of this was that they harbored some irrational fear that the costumes dared the Devil to possess the child. Ironically, the ones that were forbidden from dressing as monsters went into a heavy metal/skinhead/Goth period in their adolescence, while the ones who had their fling were more likely to dress rather plainly.

In short, the idea is to reduce all harm. Usually public schools are not a place for launching charity fund drives, so it doesn't bother me that a tradition like the one you mentioned might be curtailed. I would fully support, however, some public place where people can gather irrespective of their religions for the purposes of organizing charities like the one you describe.

I guess it is different in the US. My kid's school has charity drives all the time. Some going to religious groups like Saint Vincent de Paul or to the Red Cross, for example.

Going after little kids though? That's harsh. The solution in the case of this school would have been easy. They could have provided a better solution - such as suggesting it's donated to the Red Cross for example. Instead, the legal threat resulted in it being canceled days before they were due to hand it all over. I think it's poor form to be honest and just looks petty and stupid.

When it gets to the point where you're going after kids just before Christmas because of a political argument, then yeah, it's not a good look and the public perception of atheists in general just dropped below the ground. If we want to combat religious intrusion in 3rd world countries and ensure the separation of Church and State, then atheist groups need to start providing better alternatives.

 

[Trooper]

If we want to combat religious intrusion in 3rd world countries and ensure the separation of Church and State, then atheist groups need to start providing better alternatives.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? There is no "we".

Put your money where your mouth is, little Missy.

http://pathfindersproject.com/

[video=youtube_share;-i3W8QrfNg4]http://youtu.be/-i3W8QrfNg4[/video]

 

[Bells]

Who is this "we" of which you speak? There is no "we".

Put your money where your mouth is, little Missy.

http://pathfindersproject.com/

[video=youtube_share;-i3W8QrfNg4]http://youtu.be/-i3W8QrfNg4[/video]

Last year my family and I donated over $150K to several charity organisations which provide for healthcare and education for people in need in 3rd world countries and in Australia, not to mention the numerous hours a week I donate in time as a volunteer. This and having donated several homes across several states in my home country to be used as shelter's and safe houses for people in need.

You were saying, "Missy"?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Tiassas issue is very serous to him (an others)... an this thred has been very informative... an i have concluded that i am NOT a militant atheist... an if any of you "disgruntled-atheists" (in-the-closet-Christans) dont like it... screw you... eh :spank:

 

[Trooper]

Last year my family and I donated over $150K to several charity organisations which provide for healthcare and education for people in need in 3rd world countries and in Australia, not to mention the numerous hours a week I donate in time as a volunteer. This and having donated several homes across several states in my home country to be used as shelter's and safe houses for people in need.

Toot-toot.

Well then, maybe next year you could throw a little towards that secular missionary project, eh?

Nitey-Nite, little Missy.

 

[Bells]

Toot-toot.

Well then, maybe next year you could throw a little towards that secular missionary project, eh?

Nitey-Nite, little Missy.

Médecins Sans Frontières, UNICEF, CARE, Marie Stopes International, Planned Parenthood, Oxfam are not secular enough to your liking?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

TOP THAT.!!!

Not to brag... but by the time im dead... i espect to have givin close to $2 M to charities :wave:

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

The problem with making the Biblical argument for gay rights, is that there always remains a biblical argument against it. Why are we giving the Bible such credibility in the first place?

And here we come back to that lack of pathos.

Like I said, I'm more likely to win that argument than compel a Christian to abandon faith.

I don't care what a person's religion is, as long as they're not hurting anyone. If I can choose between chasing down injustice or hounding someone to abandon their faith, I'll go with the former. And sometimes that means being able to discuss issues with people according to their terms.

• • •​

Excuse me, Tiassa, but you'll need to show me exactly where I said there was a moral ambiguity about mass murder. You have 24 hours.

(chortle!)

Is clicking a link too hard for you to figure out?

Very well:

"What I need is for you to ask the question you mean to ask, rather than asking me something vague which you can refine after the fact. So, let's try again:

What do you mean by 'fundamentally?' Which aspect of Naziism do you view as being fundamental to their nature? What is it, exactly, that you're asking me to agree or disagree with?"​

It's not a hard question. Well, except, of course, for you.

Seriously, you can't even make a rational argument why the Nazis were wrong? We come back to the question: Were the Nazis fundamentally wrong, or simply inadequately aimed?

That you have a problem understanding the word "fundamentally" should not be anyone else's problem.

And revisionism in the Nazi question is always a fraught path. After all, you can't simply get rid of "race" by converting to another religion. Hitler's infamous 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus focuses largely on the behaviors, attitudes, and ideas of the Jewish people. The question of the Jewish race in the speech is a behavioral issue:

Thus we can see the two great differences between races: Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear – socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism. And due to these traits, which he cannot ‘overstep’ as they are in his blood and, as he himself admits, in these traits alone lays the necessity for the Jew to behave unconditionally as a destroyer of states. He cannot do otherwise, whether he wants to or not. And thereby he is unable to create his own state because it requires a lot of social sense. He is only able to live as a parasite in the states of others. He lives as a race amongst other races, in a state within others states. And we can see very precisely that when a race does not possess certain traits which must be hereditary, it not only cannot create a state but must act as a destroyer, no matter if a given individual is good or evil.

—"Why We Are Antisemites"​

If that argument was purely about race, then there would be no way out for any Jewish person under the Nazi regime. Except, of course, there was. Some of these were procedural and pertained to claiming one really wasn't Jewish; some of these were behavioral, and one could apply to be not Jewish—it is said that the Fuhrer took great interest in these cases, reviewing them by the thousands, and thus undermining his own argument that the racial characteristics of the Jewish people cause irreconcilable behavior. And, well, there was, of course, Emil Maurice, the man of Jewish ancestry who helped build the Schutzstaffel; Hitler retained Maurice despite the objections of Heinrich Himmler.

The racial aspect of the Nazi outlook was part of the usual dehumanization process when one intends to wipe out a people.

And here's the thing: One can change their ideology or religion, but how, exactly, does someone change their ethnicity?

To use American racepolitik as a comparison, an African-American Muslim might convert to Christianity or Atheism, but that person will never stop being black.

To hold that the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jewish people was purely about racism is to ignore the facts of what actually happened.

Oh, and did you hear? Hitler might have married a Jewish woman; they're still arguing about it, but obviously he wasn't as smart about who was or wasn't a Jew as he thought he was.

Mass murder is simply wrong. You don't need a complex argument on this point. The circumstances under which such an act might be considered noble or, at the very least, simply not evil ... wow. I mean, extraterrestrial invasion? Kill every lizard you see?

I mean, sure, I can imagine a far-flung circumstance in which humanity is reasonably compelled to exterminate every member of a species, but no, it's not happening anytime soon. And, besides, humanity got out of that one without destroying every lizard. Although they did attempt genocide through biological warfare. So, you know, give me a holler when Jane Badler shows up on your doorstep asking if she can borrow a cup of live mice, but, well, right. Short of that ... er ... right, I'll burn that bridge when humanity comes to it.

But it's pretty simple logic: Mass murder is impractical and dangerous; if the Nazis were right, then who could say anyone else was wrong for trying to exterminate all people of German ancestry? And if one really needs objective morality, such a circumstance is simply unhealthy for the species.

I suppose it's also worth mentioning, in terms of the long history of European antisemitism, that Torquemada was Jewish.

"Torque, torque, the Beast needs more torque." (Rheostatics)​