A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Trooper]

My sexuality has EVERYTHING to do with why I oppose religion.

Really, EVERYTHING? If you weren't gay, you’d be religious?

 

[Magical Realist]

Because you are not the sole representative of the LGBT on this site. Your sexuality has everything to do with why you oppose religion. Why do you think it would or should be the case for Yazata and the many other members of the LGBT community who post here? Why does it have to be?

Have you considered that it may not be? Have you considered that he may be a theist? Many members of the LGBT community are theists, you know.

Have you considered that his reasons for his possibly being an atheist is different to yours? His experience may be wholly different to yours?

Have you possibly considered that your experiences do not represent the whole?

Have you considered that your reasons for being an atheist is because of how you were treated and his reasons for being an atheist is not based on his emotions and his experiences but because he just doesn't think there is a god, for example?

Stop projecting your reasons onto others. Just because he is bisexual does not mean he has to have the same reasons to be an atheist as you do and he may just not speak up about it because he is under no obligation to speak up about it as a bisexual like you seem to expect him to.

I'm not projecting anything. Like I said, I've known Yazata for 15 years. We are good friends and respect each other's opposing viewpoints. And I also happen to know he is atheist. If MY sexual orientation is a reason for opposing religion, why should it not be the case for him? We are both members of an oppressed class. Religion is one of the main forces behind this oppression. Ofcourse this question should be raised. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Magical Realist]

Really, EVERYTHING? If you weren't gay, you’d be religious?

No. Not really. I have a thousand and one reasons for not being religious. It's just that being gay is one of the most morally defensible.

 

[Bells]

What atheist here has ever called for the persecution of religious people?

I'm sorry, did we forget the posts where one called for murdering pastors, bombing churches and burning churches and killing religious people?

You don't seem to care what anyone thinks about anything. You certainly have never been proven wrong about anything, have you? Never had to change your mind about anything. You're always right, Bells, which is why we like you so much.

Where did I claim that?

You linked to an article long after that initial question, which was associated with your comments about atheism being a "white, male dominated" hobby, and tethered to associated questions of where the gay figures, or racial minority figures, were. So its rhetorical purpose was to suggest that there were no prominent women in the field, and you've been trying to cover your blind ass ever since, pretending that the plight of women in this field is near and dear to your heart, which anyone with a brain can see is absolute bullshit.

And "many" seems to amount to a handful. While their treatment has been atrocious--and only made worse by Dawkins' idiotic post--it doesn't represent how most women are treated within these communities. Anonymous posts made condoning rape and torture in the comments section of a blog or a Youtube video don't represent anyone but the idiotic masses of anonymous douchebags typical to the internet.

Yes, I linked articles by the very women MR listed, who comment regularly on how the atheism lobby is dominated by very rich white men who often go out of their way to slander and sexually harass the women who speak on their speaking tours and who have those blogs, which is why many of these women don't even speak on those tours anymore. I made my point clear, just because you focus more on the word 'white' and are incapable of recognising the actual plight of women outside of what you believe their experiences are is not my concern.

Persecute him? Are you high? No one was persecuted, and your abuse of the term is frankly disgusting. Knock it off. Even you must know better than that.

Let me put it this way..

If a straight person had made that argument to Yazata, we'd have been having a fit about it, and rightly so. Implying that he is not being a good bisexual because he doesn't speak out about it is an abuse of his sexuality.

You think chastising someone for not representing their community is bullying? That's absurd.

I have an idea: Let's use words as they are meant to be used.

I think making an example of his sexuality and his sexual identity is bullying. I made the exact same argument when one straight guy commented on his sexuality out of the blue and made some weird comments about how gays apparently hate children. When you target someone for their sexuality, it's bullying.

Do you? What makes it your place to step in and act as judge? How about you realize it's none of your fucking business and keep your nose out of it? I know, I know--impossible, right?

So I should have shut up when Syne made similar comments to MR about his sexuality? I should have not requested MR's ban after he responded to Syne, be lifted because well, it's none of my business?

I see.

Interesting.

Or did that not apply because well, Syne is straight, so his using MR's sexuality as an example was wrong. But if a gay guy does it it's alright? Is that what you're now claiming?

No, so shut up about it!

No.

Explain to me what Yazata's sexuality have to do with this thread?

How do you know he was outed? If MR knows, and is telling the truth, then it stands to reason that he's already out. Maybe you shouldn't assume that your ignorance of Yazata's orientation is the standard.

That's beside the point.

Yazata's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He did not bring it up in this thread. He did not make it a point of conversation. So why is he being accused for it because he's not speaking out against religion because of his sexuality?

No, they have nothing to do with one another. MR's comment was one member of the LGBT community demanding to know why another (supposed) member of the LGBT community was silent on such an important issue. There's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than one black person asking why another black person doesn't care about black issues, or one woman asking another why she isn't more involved in women's rights issues. In fact, it doesn't have to be a member of that community asking why--though, admittedly, it's much more PC when they are--because it's a legitimate question.

So shaming someone is only acceptable if you are of the same sex, race, religious persuasion or belong to the same LGBT community... Righteo then.

Yazata is under no obligation to speak out for or against anything because of his sexuality. No member of the LGBT is under any obligation to speak out about or against or for anything because of their sexuality. Deliberately targeting them for their sexuality is wrong and to me, not a legitimate reason.

You're wrong, as usual. And, as usual, your emotional reaction goes beyond the pale and is preventing whatever critical thinking you're capable of from understanding this.

You keep commenting on my emotions Balerion. Each time I disagree with you, you come out in a way that I can only view as being somewhat sexist because you are buying into the whole stereotypical misogynistic bullshit that women get emotional. So cut it out.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dude, ignore the troll. You don't have to answer to her. If Yaz's sexuality isn't a secret, then you didn't violate any of his rights and you aren't in violation of any rules of this site. She's trying to bait you because she knows she fucked up and this is what she does. Just ignore it.

Having just come off a 2 week ban from an overzealous moderator, I think I'll take your advice. I'm done with this conversation...

 

[quinnsong]

=Yazata;3184633]That depends on how the word is being defined.


If we are talking about fundamentalism in some post-9/11 generic sense, as referring to a militant and often violent opposition to modernity in the name of ancient tradition, then generally speaking, I oppose it pretty vehemently.

This is the definition of Fundamentalism I am opposed to and IMO it is more a political movement masquerading as a spiritual one.

I'll add that I'm not all that comfortable with militant moralism, whatever direction it's coming from. Some of the so-called 'progressive' schemes that propose to frog-march everyone into the schemers' own vision of the brave-new-future scare me too. (Marxism's 'scientific socialism' is the paradigm example of that.) Even atheists proclaiming themselves as the righteous ones makes me uneasy. I start to sense the always disagreeable odor of fanaticism and unshakeable self-righteousness. (That's when people start to get hurt.)

I agree in principle with what you say here about fanaticism, no matter where it comes from. Do you think it militant that I speak out against Fundamentalism and support candidates who speak out against it?

I wouldn't call it a 'sect' exactly and it isn't just Christianity.

Your right it is much more than that, see above.

But the question I have is what does atheism have to do with any of this?

Atheists are political just like everyone else so in the sense that Fundamentalism is more about politics than spirituality it gets a little muddy and that is their intention. If one choose to edify oneself with whatever deity by oneself or in a group setting so be it. Most American Christians seem content with this form of spirituality and I am equally content with them. Fundamentalists want a theocracy and if you see me as militant about my activism against this movement, then I guess I am a militant in your eyes.

Can one really derive a whole political-style program out of simple disbelief in religious deities? Can one derive the nonexistence of religious deities from opposition to 'fundamentalism' or whatever the program is? These seem to me to be two different things that may sometimes go together in a person's thinking, but they don't necessarily imply each other. And how does one make the leap from either of these things (disbelief in gods/opposition to fundamentalism) to wholesale opposition to and even hatred of 'religion' and 'religionists' in general, whatever the religious beliefs or practices might be?

Fundamentalism only appears to be spiritual but at its core is a political behemoth and as soon as you go up against it you will be accused of attacking the body of Christ when in fact you are only opposing the policies they would have implemented. See how muddy it gets.

First, it's fair. Focusing our arguments against what we really think is wrong prevents us from turning billions of religious people who have nothing to do with whatever we dislike into 'collateral damage'.

I am not a theist hater by any stretch of the imagination and I had thought I was clear and focused about which part of Christianity I have contempt for.

Second, it increases that odds that we might find allies among "religionists" who oppose the same things that we don't like.

I agree.

And third, it's just smarter and more intellectually respectable. Atheists love to pose as the intelligent ones, as the voices of "reason" and "science". It's hard to make that particular boast fly when the one doing the boasting doesn't even recognize that he/she is egregiously making obvious and elementary errors in critical thinking.

Can you be more specific about the critical error part or is this just a rehash of the first and second point, above.

 

[Bells]

The post was a response to his own attempt to "shame me" for opposing religious people as evil villains, something I never said in the first place. See how that works? We express our moral opinions online, get called out on them when it appears we aren't living up to them and are in fact doing the exact thing we condemn, and then defend ourselves further. It's the same pattern over and over in all these threads. How to hold others to a moral standard that we ourselves aren't even living up to. What I did was no different. As a fellow atheist he held me to a standard of moral conduct based purely on my being atheist. I held him to a standard of moral conduct based purely on him being bisexual. So what's the difference? Everybody does it all the time here. But because it involves sexual orientation, there's suddenly an element of "shame" involved? I don't agree.

In other words, you expect a certain manner of behaviour from him because he is bisexual?

You expect him to comply, or adhere to a certain argument, in a certain way because he is bisexual?

Because that's not its own form of discrimination, is it?

If I, as a straight person, had asked him that question, an angry response to me would have been valid. I did not know if Yazata was LGBT or heterosexual. I don't care if he is or not. He's an atheist? Okay. So what? I don't hold him as being different or expect him to have certain opinions because of his sexuality. So I don't understand why you do. Do you expect all LGBT to believe the same as you do? What happens if they don't? Do you set them aside? Infer that they aren't good LGBT community members for not towing whatever line you seem to believe there is in regards to personal beliefs because of your personal experiences?

I find holding him to a particular moral conduct based on his sexuality is a form of discrimination because if he does not behave or live up to that particular moral conduct, then he is shamed for it because of his sexuality. And that is wrong and damaging in its own way.

No offense MR, but that's just wrong in my opinion.

 

[Balerion]

I'm sorry, did we forget the posts where one called for murdering pastors, bombing churches and burning churches and killing religious people?

Oh right, that one time that someone got upset and said something they didn't mean? Yeah, that time you'll pretend is representative of all of us, or most of us, or even really representative of that one person even though it isn't?

You're going to pretend that one hasn't been explained to you? That there's no context here? Of course you are.

Where did I claim that?

It's evident in your posts. You've never been wrong about anything, according to you.

Yes, I linked articles by the very women MR listed,

Which is merely a transcript of the link I provided...

who comment regularly on how the atheism lobby is dominated by very rich white men who often go out of their way to slander and sexually harass the women who speak on their speaking tours and who have those blogs, which is why many of these women don't even speak on those tours anymore. I made my point clear, just because you focus more on the word 'white' and are incapable of recognising the actual plight of women outside of what you believe their experiences are is not my concern.

You're trying to change the subject, but you can't change the timeline. You did this only after these people were pointed out to you. Prior to that, you asked where they were, and where the prominent gay atheists were, and where the prominent racial minority atheists were. You were trying to convey the idea that these people don't exist, because, well, you didn't know they did.

Let me put it this way..

If a straight person had made that argument to Yazata, we'd have been having a fit about it, and rightly so. Implying that he is not being a good bisexual because he doesn't speak out about it is an abuse of his sexuality.

You'd be having a fit about it because you are reactionary. You don't stop to think before you take a sledgehammer to your keyboard. But no sensible person would take issue with what MR said--at least, not in the cartoonish way you did, suggesting that he was persecuting or bullying Yazata. That's just straight-up stupid. You can disagree that Yazata needs to speak about these things, but you can't accuse MR of being anything other than wrong.

I think making an example of his sexuality and his sexual identity is bullying. I made the exact same argument when one straight guy commented on his sexuality out of the blue and made some weird comments about how gays apparently hate children. When you target someone for their sexuality, it's bullying.

Again, it wasn't the same comment. And you know this, which is why you've omitted the following from the post you're replying to:

No, they have nothing to do with one another. MR's comment was one member of the LGBT community demanding to know why another (supposed) member of the LGBT community was silent on such an important issue. There's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than one black person asking why another black person doesn't care about black issues, or one woman asking another why she isn't more involved in women's rights issues. In fact, it doesn't have to be a member of that community asking why--though, admittedly, it's much more PC when they are--because it's a legitimate question.

Because when someone makes a good point, you just pretend it doesn't exist, apparently.

So I should have shut up when Syne made similar comments to MR about his sexuality? I should have not requested MR's ban after he responded to Syne, be lifted because well, it's none of my business?

Again, they weren't the same comment. Syne saying that MR hates kids because he's gay has no logical appeal; it's merely a flame, and one rooted in ignorance and bigotry. MR's comment, on the other hand, can be argued for logically. And I think he's done a good job of doing exactly that.

Or did that not apply because well, Syne is straight, so his using MR's sexuality as an example was wrong. But if a gay guy does it it's alright? Is that what you're now claiming?

You don't honestly believe those are the choices, do you Bells? Nobody could possibly be that ignorant.

Explain to me what Yazata's sexuality have to do with this thread?

I think MR did a bang-up job of that himself:

The post was a response to his own attempt to "shame me" for opposing religious people as evil villains, something I never said in the first place. See how that works? We express our moral opinions online, get called out on them when it appears we aren't living up to them and are in fact doing the exact thing we condemn, and then defend ourselves further. It's the same pattern over and over in all these threads. How to hold others to a moral standard that we ourselves aren't even living up to. What I did was no different. As a fellow atheist he held me to a standard of moral conduct based purely on my being atheist. I held him to a standard of moral conduct based purely on him being bisexual. So what's the difference? Everybody does it all the time here. But because it involves sexual orientation, there's suddenly an element of "shame" involved? I don't agree.

He's also addressed it briefly in other posts, but that one is his best summation.

That's beside the point.

Not according to your first few posts on the matter, which specifically honed in on the potential that Yazata does not want his sexual orientation known. You made reference to MR "outing" Yazata more than once.

Yazata's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He did not bring it up in this thread. He did not make it a point of conversation. So why is he being accused for it because he's not speaking out against religion because of his sexuality?

Yazata doesn't have to make it a point of conversation for it to be one.

So shaming someone is only acceptable if you are of the same sex, race, religious persuasion or belong to the same LGBT community... Righteo then.

As you are fully aware, I never said any such thing.

Yazata is under no obligation to speak out for or against anything because of his sexuality. No member of the LGBT is under any obligation to speak out about or against or for anything because of their sexuality.

1. That's your opinion, not an objective fact.

2. That's an entirely different argument than the one you've made prior to this point.

Deliberately targeting them for their sexuality is wrong and to me, not a legitimate reason.

When the question is, "Why, as a bisexual person, are you not speaking out against religions for their actions on this front," there's no way to ask the question without deliberately targeting a bisexual person.

You keep commenting on my emotions Balerion. Each time I disagree with you, you come out in a way that I can only view as being somewhat sexist because you are buying into the whole stereotypical misogynistic bullshit that women get emotional. So cut it out.

Oh Christ, stop hiding behind your vagina already. When a poster behaves in the manner you have behaved, I'll tell them their emotions are getting the better of them. The fact that you're a woman won't stop me from doing this.

 

[Balerion]

In other words, you expect a certain manner of behaviour from him because he is bisexual?

You expect him to comply, or adhere to a certain argument, in a certain way because he is bisexual?

Because that's not its own form of discrimination, is it?

If I, as a straight person, had asked him that question, an angry response to me would have been valid. I did not know if Yazata was LGBT or heterosexual. I don't care if he is or not. He's an atheist? Okay. So what? I don't hold him as being different or expect him to have certain opinions because of his sexuality. So I don't understand why you do. Do you expect all LGBT to believe the same as you do? What happens if they don't? Do you set them aside? Infer that they aren't good LGBT community members for not towing whatever line you seem to believe there is in regards to personal beliefs because of your personal experiences?

I find holding him to a particular moral conduct based on his sexuality is a form of discrimination because if he does not behave or live up to that particular moral conduct, then he is shamed for it because of his sexuality. And that is wrong and damaging in its own way.

No offense MR, but that's just wrong in my opinion.

It would be discrimination based on behavior, not sexuality.

But you're on the right track by adding the "in my opinion" qualifier. Good job.

 

[quinnsong]

:spank Balerion

Can you try to be civil or is there some kind of orgasmic pleasure you get from your petty tirades?

 

[Balerion]

Having just come off a 2 week ban from an overzealous moderator, I think I'll take your advice. I'm done with this conversation...

It's a smart choice. I submitted a ticket about this, so maybe the admins will see and tell her cool her jets.

 

[Bells]

Having just come off a 2 week ban from an overzealous moderator, I think I'll take your advice. I'm done with this conversation...

You were banned for personal attacks, abusing people who queried if the photos a guy took claiming that fairies existed was real or fake or whether they were insects, refusing to back up your claims about fairies, weren't you? You think that ban was a result of overzealous moderation?

Riiightt...

Okay then, moving right along..

 

[Balerion]

:spank Balerion

Can you try to be civil or is there some kind of orgasmic pleasure you get from your petty tirades?

Do you do anything other than take potshots from the sideline?

That's what I thought.

NEXT.

 

[Bells]

Oh Christ, stop hiding behind your vagina already.

Are you kidding me?

You actually think this is acceptable?

 

[Magical Realist]

It's a smart choice. I submitted a ticket about this, so maybe the admins will see and tell her cool her jets.

What's a ticket? Does it really do anything?

 

[Kittamaru]

*facepalms repeatedly*

This is a farce... it truly is. However, there has been little here that warrants any moderation response in accordance with the rules of this subforum (which, as discussed in the relevant thread, have been relaxed with the intention of "letting things sort themselves out"... after all:

I don't think we should be expected to respect someone's ideas. Respect isn't a default position.

When I asked for moderation in the Religion forum, what I was looking for was someone to keep an eye on the flaming and baiting, which was most obvious in the posts of people like jan and wynn (and Syne, ironically). I didn't want an iron-fisted ruler to start demanding we all play nice. This forum operates well when there's room given for a bit of incivility. That's how argument works.

I've learned my lesson. Asking for anything from this team is futile, because they'll always make the wrong choice, the one that further empowers them at the expense of the rest of us. Just leave the forum as it was. We'll sort it out.

So, given your request... I will simply disregard the tickets you have submitted. You requested it... sort it out yourself. I'm only going to take action when there is an excessive/egregious/absurd breach of protocol (or basic human rights).

 

[quinnsong]

Do you do anything other than take potshots from the sideline?

That's what I thought.

NEXT.

Excuse me, you are not even on topic mr hissyfitaboutanythingandEVERYTHING! You shoo any attempt at levity or reason out of the way so you can play mock wars with whatever moderator you can get the attention of.

 

[leopold]

. . . batshit insane baboon!

now there is an interesting image.
i might have to get an avatar . . . and name it after you!

Perhaps the religion created by men should stop writing and making religious decrees about women.

women get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways.

 

[Kittamaru]

women get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways.

*snrk* Well, that depends on the man in question now, doesn't it?

*rimshot*

Sorry... my mind... visiting the gutter... couldnt' help it.

 

[quinnsong]

now there is an interesting image.
i might have to get an avatar . . . and name it after you!

women get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways.

Still work to do but things are looking better for the most part. Just need to keep heading in the right direction.