Atheist Divisiveness and Dogmatism
Lately, I've been realizing that, despite what I had come to believe, religion is not the biggest danger to society. Poor thinking is. Adherence to mindless dogmatism is. The self-serving desire to fit everybody into a mold, likely similar to your own, is. These traits are unfortunately not limited to theists.
Obviously, being a member of the Rational Response Squad puts me in a position to be critiqued and vilified by the people who possess the aforementioned character flaws, and recently I've been seeing it almost constantly. It literally pains me to see that so many who have managed to escape religion still cling to so many other similarly irrational ideas and use such blatantly poor logic-particularly if it involves us. Have we done some controversial things? Sure. Are we brash, loud-mouthed, occasionally immature, and possibly arrogant? Sometimes, yes. Have we made mistakes? Of course-show me one person who hasn't, and I'll show you a liar. Do we have conversations about sex, have ads all over the place containing visible cleavage (OMGZ!), and in general like to have some "old-fashioned" fun? Most definitely. Do you know why? Because atheists don't have to be stodgy intellectuals!
This might be news to you, so I'll try to take you through it easily. Atheism means one thing-not having a belief in a god. That's it. It doesn't mean that for the rest of my life I can only wear a certain type of clothing, can never swear, can't be overtly sexual or too attractive, can't have fun, can't drink, and can only read/watch/listen that which has been deemed appropriate by the Council for the Protection of the Public-Image of All Atheists Everywhere. That is called religion!
It is absolutely bewildering that so many have freed themselves of the shackles of religion only to put on new ones. Forgive my candor, but I've seen some atheists lately who appear to have a stick shoved so far up their asses that it is interfering with their neuronal circuitry. Listen guys-you'll be a lot more comfortable if you just yank it out, plus you'll have the added benefit of being able to sit comfortably. Eventually, you'll even be able to maneuver your neck enough so as not to be looking down your nose at everybody else.
Seriously, though, this is a problem. The number one reason why atheists have not become a force with which to be reckoned is because we're all too busy fighting with each other over inane nonsense-instead of uniting and actually accomplishing something. Division in the atheist community is nothing new. Most of the major atheist organizations have at least one thorn in their side, if not more, and if we break it down to individuals, it turns into a bona fide mudslinging competition worthy of a sorority house during rush week.
What is it that compels people to act in this manner? Every day, I look around and see people claiming to be intellectually superior to me or others fall prey to simple ad hominem attacks. I see groups that should be banding together to attain the influence that our numbers warrant squabbling over minutiae that have nothing to do with our common goals. We are divided into sects no different from those of religious groups and it is because these supposedly logical atheists are adhering to some unwritten dogma. How can we possibly criticize the religious groups when we are engaging in the same irrational behaviors?
Instead of harping continually on the use of the word "fuck", why don't we examine the truly offensive words like "should" and "ought"? The expectation that to hold an opinion on a matter, one must have a degree in said area is ludicrous. I don't recall Pythagoras holding a degree from an accredited institution in geometry. The fact that one does not comply with the mores that are, in essence, mere remnants of religion does not invalidate an argument. No matter what kind of lifestyle one leads, people can be right or wrong; in fact, everybody has been both at some point. How is it that this is not clearly apparent to rational thinkers?
All this time spent bickering over what people do in their private lives or what content they have on their websites is time wasted--time that could be better spent by putting aside our differences and accepting the multiplicity of personalities and methods and seeing it as an advantage. If anything, what we should be offering to a populace ensnared by religion is freedom and acceptance. My experience in this community of "freethinkers" has me convinced that freethinker is a moniker undeserved by most who claim it.
I can understand that people have personal tastes and proclivities when it comes to with whom they choose to involve themselves, and I think that it's fantastic that there are groups out there for everybody to find their niche. The problem is that others aren't nearly as forgiving. Many of you probably recall the HNN podcast from the AAI conference in which Brian and I made the "chicken-shit atheist" comment. We knew we would take heat for it, although it seems that happens no matter what we do, but the point that was, perhaps poorly, intended was that we will support anybody in their struggle to attain equality in a society that continually marginalizes and disparages atheism. Even if you don't agree with us. Even if your tactics are the inverse of ours. Even if you are a chicken-shit atheist. And we have stuck by that. There is currently only one atheist against whom we have come out publicly and with whom we are not interested in mending fences, and that is because of the sheer duplicity with which this person made their entrance. We publicly boycotted his conference because of it, and from what I've heard of it, I'm glad we did.
My point here is not that I expect everybody to be close personal friends with everybody else or to even form close alliances with every group out there; I realize that people will be drawn to particular methods or styles. The point is that for every time that somebody accuses us of somehow "harming atheism", whatever that means, that person needs to take a look in the mirror and evaluate his or her own opinions. What is the origin of such a visceral reaction and why are you having it? BE rational-don't just talk about being rational. And, just FYI, it's okay to occasionally cut some of us imperfect people some slack for not meeting your criteria. Maybe instead of being rude and hurling insults, the more enlightened among us could actually do something constructive instead of destructive.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -Thomas Jefferson
"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." -Albert Ellis
RRS harms atheism
I can't say what others have meant when they say RRS "harms atheism", But i can tell you what i mean when i say it.
It appears that the Atheist movement consists of two types of people/groups. One that genuinely wants to see an end to religion, or at least an end to religions influence in society, And another which wants nothing more than someone to argue with, Someone to offend and someone to harass. RRS seems to be in the later (as does Hitchens at times).
If one thinks that Atheism should be about removing religion then having a group, Especially one as <i>popular</i> as RRS, Who get their jollies from arguing, shouting down and harassing the religious is seen as damaging.
I can't imagine the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury ever saying "I'm tired of RRS saying i'm stupid or changing the words of religious festivals to make them sound rude... let's call it a day on this religion thing".
[GBG] Blog
Quote: Lately, I've been
I definitely agree with that!
GodBeGone wrote:
I don't think any of the core RRS members are trying to convert anyone, so that last paragraph, to me, seems like it misses the point.
From what I understand, the point of the RRS has nothing to do with theists. If the RRS piss off a theist, it doesn't really matter. If they convert a theist, well that's fucking great, but it's completely incidental.
The point is to rally together people who are already atheists or who are skeptical of religion and want to open their minds to it. The RRS use ridicule against theists not to convert them, but to expose how silly theism looks to bystanders who were maybe wondering about the question being discussed or who haven't made up their mind about the god question yet.
So, no, the RRS probably aren't going to convert anyone or convince any theists that atheism is okay, but there is a huge group of people out there that the RRS can motivate, stir to action, empower, and sometimes comfort. THAT is what they're going for, as far as I can tell.
The RRS isn't the end of the road. I see it as more of a stepping stone to bigger things. Maybe a teenager who felt trapped in their Christian conservative community read some articles and forum threads on this website, and maybe that caused them to feel comfortable with themselves (otherwise impossible in a community that told them they were going to burn in hell), and then maybe that teen will become the next Margaret Downey.
I don't claim to know everything the RRS is trying to do---I'm not even a paid subscriber, so I always feel like kind of an ass when I make posts like this. But it does seem like a lot of people hone in the fact that the RRS are combative and love to ridicule.
Yes, that's probably true, but it seems like there is more method to the madness than critics give credit for. Whether we're talking about the RRS or Hitchens, there is more to the argument than the argument itself. You have to ask who is WATCHING the argument. Some of that audience is simply going to get pissed off (probably theists), but hopefully the atheists watching will feel like they've got support, and hopefully the undecided or confused will come closer to making the rational decision. The RRS strategy seems to think long-term, empowerment, and strength in numbers, whereas their critics seem to want to think short-term, conversion, and the death of theism.
On the other hand, I'm just some guy they let hang out here sometimes. I may not even know what I'm talking about.
"What would Jesus do for a Klondike Bar?"
"Faith is a lot like virginity. You can't appreciate how annoying it is until you actually lose it."
"I don't think any of the
"I don't think any of the core RRS members are trying to convert anyone, so that last paragraph, to me, seems like it misses the point."
Not to start a fight or anything, but they *do* have those shirts that say "Believe in God? We can fix that!" which kind of suggests the notion of conversion.
That said -- I agree with Kelly. I see an awful lot of folks out there who are giving up religion (yay!) but immediately asking "ok, so why am I giving this up again? Tell me!" It's unfortunate, but a lot of people just don't like to think on their own. Of course, I would rather have them on OUR side than on the oppositions (fewer people to chase me with pitchforks and torches).
I think some people view it as changing buses rather than getting off the bus entirely. It's possible the reason for that is that when some people get off the bus, they think "I feel passionate about this, I want to help other people free themselves", which creates a "cause." (This is probably why the religious folk refer to atheism as a religion). But it really boils down to your reasons for abdicating your religious belief -- is it because you reached the conclusion yourself? Or because you're following the crowd?
Quote: ...religion is not
So true that it makes me want to cry. The research I've recently been doing on family, sex, and reproduction has driven me to depression a couple of times. Details forthcoming when I feel positive enough to write about it.
I'd suggest one better -- leave the stodginess to the ivory towers. I prefer my friends and associates to be fun people. I've always thought that when I truly get stodgy, I'm ready to die.
It's likely a biproduct of what caused religion in the first place, but that's another topic. Clearly, there are people who can dispense with religion. If it ever had survival benefit, and I think it once did, it doesn't now. Similarly, the rather authoritarian attitudes of many atheists could well be replaced with a broader understanding of the diversity (and non-threatening nature) of human experience.
Fuckin' A!
Einstein, baby!
Ok. In all seriousness, most atheists have no idea just how deeply the roots of religion run. Particularly where they apply to sex, marriage, and monogamy, current moral thought really does trace back to a land grab by the Roman empire less than 100 years after Constantine converted Rome to Christianity.
I'm not kidding. The first laws passed by the new Church/State essentially did the following:
1) Outlawed inmarriage out to the 4th cousin.
2) Outlawed divorce
3) Outlawed adoption
4) Outlawed concubinage/polygamy
5) (Later laws outlawed passing land to non-family members)
6) Put in place mechanisms where childless couples could donate their land to the church in perpetuity.
Now, if you look closely at 1-5, you'll notice something. All of them reduce the number of potential heirs, leaving many people without anyone to pass land to. Within 400 years, the church owned nearly 40% of all the land in Christian occupied Europe. The family structures which had previously existed, which you can find detailed and mandated by God in the Old Testament -- note: Moses was adopted. Inmarriage was common. Solomon... 'nuff said. Abraham. I could go on, but you get the point. Pre-Roman society was tribal, and the current mom-dad-child family was essentially nonexistent. People relied on their group for support, allowing for much greater dispersion of family resources.
The church created the current model of indegency and poverty by systematically taking tribal lands in exchange for "treasure in heaven." What a deal!
Over the centuries, the church has done nothing but expand on its prohibitions on sex and marriage, to the point that medical doctors in the 17th century wrote of women's "inherent asexuality."
Celibacy of the priesthood was not instituted until centuries after Rome became Christian. It was done in large part to prevent priests from passing church property to their children, interestingly enough. Masturbation didn't fall out of favor until the 17th century.
In short, many atheists nee Christians fail to recognize the profound and life altering concepts that are so ingrained in our society that they feel normal -- until you really start asking the hard questions.
The primary difficulty here is in realizing the difference between freedom and acceptance, and rationality and reason. We may vigorously defend a position, and we will probably tell people when we can demonstrate their irrationality. Freedom to do what you want doesn't mean freedom from hearing others tell you that it's irrational.
Where this hits us pretty hard is that the freedom we are trying to promote encourages exactly the kind of bitching and moaning we're trying to avoid. Freedom precedes wisdom, unfortunately.
I've never really liked the word "freethinker." Even the harshest secular critics of atheist morals are thinking quite freely. In fact, they're thinking so freely that they didn't bother with confining their thoughts to the realm of critical standards.
I couldn't agree more.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Quote: It appears that the
I'm curious. What method for dissuading people from religion do you recommend? We find that telling them what's wrong with it is direct and to the point. Other than using words, how would you suggest we demonstrate the irrationality of religion?
Here's some immature harrassment for you:
Hey, numbnuts! If there were no more religion, we wouldn't need RRS. Take your brain out of your ass, please.
I get my jollies from food, wine, and having sex with my girlfriend, and anyone she cares to invite to the party. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I donate my time to RRS, along with a substantial part of my living money. It pisses me off to do a lot of the work I do here, because I could be eating, drinking, and fucking instead.
Piss up a rope.
You're right. We should just let religion have their way. What a fool I've been. We shouldn't call stupid shit stupid. We should just be nice and polite. After all, it got us 45%(ish) of the population believing that George W. Bush was ordained by Baby Jesus to be president. If that isn't rational, I don't know what is.
I'm turning in my badge from the League of Atheist Assholes.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Quote: From what I
To be precise, RRS believes that large numbers of empowered, confident atheists will encourage fence-sitting theists to deconvert, and the balance of power will shift. We're here to make it easier to be an atheist. The hope is that those who are pretending at religion will see, and it will be easier for them to leave.
We recognize that many of the brainwashed can never be freed. We have hope for the next generation.
Give the man a cigar!
Actually, we've got a nice number of deconverts to our credit. JCE, one of our most awesomest fabulous-est mods, was a Christian until BGH helped her fix herself.
For the price of one six pack a month, you could be! FSM knows we could use the help.
I wish I didn't have to do it. Sincerely. I hate being angry, but Christians make me angry. As with most things that make me angry, I try to make them go away.
Shhhhhh! Don't give away all our secrets!
You're doing great. Thanks for the support!
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Hamby did a good job on
Hamby did a good job on your garbage but I can't resist getting my licks in...
First of all, Hitchens is at least one billion times as intelligent and experienced as you are. So you might want to respect his methods.
Mainly, though, you are using the time-honored theist trick of the false dichotomy. Either you approach atheism the way I do or you don't really want to end religion. Has it occured to you that some atheists think, with good reason, that your chicken-shit methods suck and don't accomplish anything?
What have you done to bring about the end of religion lately?
How are you going to remove religion without a group? What are you, Superman?
Thank you for acknowledging that our methods work and are doing more to get people involved and engaged than all the pious philosophizing of your life. Are you getting it yet? Atheism has to be popular before it can be anything else.
This is a straight-on ad hominem slag. Fuck you. I dare you to bring that shit over here. You have no evidence, at all, that anyone "gets their jollies" from anything in particular. Further, we never "shout down" religion or "harass" anyone. We argue with theists. They are rarely ever able to argue back, and when they are, their arguments fold like cheap umbrellas. Should we feel bad for winning all the time?
If our methods are seen as damaging by pricks like you, then I am twice as proud to be involved with the RRS as I am. You are probably a theist sock puppet anyway.
Because they've been doing that so much in response to the chicken-shit atheist efforts we've seen so far.
Are you really so stupid that you think it is our goal to make people like the Pope publically renounce? Can you present the slightest shred of evidence that such is any part of our goal? Or are you just throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks?
You pissed me off GBG because your whole post is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. I find it very difficult to believe you are really an atheist, though it would almost be more angering if you were.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
To be fair to GBG (because
To be fair to GBG (because I'm interested in the truth, even if it's ugly), Kelly's thoughts are spot on. Many atheists carry a lot of baggage from theism, and many of them don't even realize it's there. GBG might well have dropped the religion, but not have thought about the social implications of abandoning dogma and theism.
Our job as rationalists is to try to help everyone, atheist and theist alike, see that there are many things to be questioned. If an atheist decides he's comfortable in his 9-5, one wife (complete with no blow jobs since the last kid was born), two point seven kids, Ford Excessive, and a white picket fence, that's great. However, it would be nice if he would recognize that his choice is not representative of a great many people, and that we get a bit pissy when other people try to impose the same kinds of structures that religion does.
[edit: As much as I hate it when theists pose as atheists, I'm beginning to suspect that we at the RRS just have a problem coming to grips with the number of atheists who still have their head up Jesus' bum.]
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
It is extremely unfortunate
It is extremely unfortunate but atheism is heavily laced with one form of dogmatism or another. The term IMO should be stricken and simply replaced with reason, rationalism and unbelief. Tom Metzger of the White Aryan Nations is an atheist (or he may have converted to Odinism) and let's face it, he and Greydon will never be warm and fuzzy with each other. Tom Metzger may be an atheist but he is a white supremacist asshole and would never belong in RRS. And no rational person would ever argue that not believing in the supernatural will transform you into a neo-nazi.
I can't stand alleged atheists who want to cram their morality down my throat. And usually one of the most divisive issues is porn. Why do certain atheists who still masturbate to vestiges of religious dogma feel compelled to point out the immorality of what an individual (or individuals) do in the privacy of his/her home with a box of tissues and a raunchy DVD or lad mag. I don't really care if you hate or like porn but that matter really has nothing to do with not believing in God. There are no set rules of moral behavior to follow by being atheist except for our innate Golden Rule as seen in our simian cousins.
If you fanatically adhere to an ideology, then IMO you're not a freethinker. If you have a moral compass with the expectation that everyone else's points in the same direction, then you're not a freethinker. You are in fact just a few nucleotides away from being like Tom Metzger.
Just as an FYI: Based on
Just as an FYI: Based on our knowledge of GBG he is an atheist. Furthermore he is ironically a small portion of the reason Kelly wrote the post. He's one atheist of about 15 from LAST WEEK that we found to be utilizing poor modes of thought. One of about 15 people that represent a straw breaking a camels back.
I find it refreshing and a testament to the modes of thought that Tilberian and Hamby utilize that they feel similar to us about his opinion while forming those views independently of our interactions with him from last week.
Nevertheless, welcome to the community GBG, sorry you're getting the brunt of it here.
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
About Odd atheist Me
About Odd atheist Me ---
Xlint thread Kelly, and imformation etc Hamby,
Hamby Wrote "[ edit: As much as I hate it when theists pose as atheists, I'm beginning to suspect that we at the RRS just have a problem coming to grips with the number of atheists who still have their head up Jesus' bum. ]"
This sounds like it could be directed at me, as I claim to be an "Atheist for Jesus/Buddha" etc etc
I realize my approach to debunking xians is confusing to many atheists. Basically I find it very helpful to steal the Jesus from the fundys and re-lable Jesus as an early atheist.
Fundys have created their ridiculous Jesus interpretation, so I just re-invent it and stick it up their asses and in their ears. The bible is the most important atheist handbook of all, and Jesus is an atheist hero ! hee hee ....
I've been wanting to write a better explaination of my "atheist teaching style" that seems to baffle so many here at RRS, that defends Jesus and promotes Buddha, and paralles them, as both being atheists.
Anyhow untill then, if ever, stay healthy, strong and wise RRS.
"Just say no to the god of abe, make Jesus/Buddha proud " ..... did I hear someone say WTF ! ??? ! (giggles)
L O L
You make me laugh IAM. I
You make me laugh IAM. I have never been able to figure out what you think about anything! How could I direct it at you?
In all seriousness, you never crossed my mind as I was writing that. No need to worry.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
I thought all atheists had
I thought all atheists had to be friends and only use nice words. I thought we were a club here. Kelly, you have single-handedly destroyed my faith in atheism. I am shocked and astonished that you would want to infect my nice friendly social group with your opinions, sexuality, and horrific and childish language. I scoff at you and those that agree with you. How dare thee fly astray from our core belief structures? I think you need to sit down and quitly re-read our founding books as I would hate for your soul to be endangered by your mis-aligning and dirty views.
- Tarpan
yo Hambydammit , I was
yo Hambydammit , I was just generalizing, as I said "could be directed at me" ....
As serious as I can be, I'm most always trying to bring another angle to all the subjects, and usually giggling as I do it.
Sorry I confuse things mabey more than help .... shit, but it works here in my neighborhood ...
I really apprechiate big time, what you RRS folks do.
Really helpful Hamby, what you wrote above about the religious influence and church property etc.
I sent that to my large personal email audience.
Waiting for some more of that, but no hurry friend,
thanks .... *
Tarpan wrote: I thought
LMAO! Remember what her post is about. I'm sad to say it, but there is a huge number of people that don't recognize sarcastic humor.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
Tarpan wrote: I thought
Don't slander the leaders of atheist church, lest you be damned by nothing in particular to one week of southern baptist revival.
That is the punishment for those who somehow manage to break atheist commandments that do not exist.
"What would Jesus do for a Klondike Bar?"
"Faith is a lot like virginity. You can't appreciate how annoying it is until you actually lose it."
Hambydammit wrote: Our job
You cut me there, Hamby. You cut me deep.
In defence of the lifestyle I will say that not every suburban dad experiences the aforementioned blowjob problem. In fact the spacious interior of the Ford Excessive can sometimes have utility beyond its ability to transport multiple kids.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Quote: Council for the
Hmm good idea... time to start such a council immediately.
I forgive you.
I agree with your idea here... but as long as you keep this a suggestion and not something wrong with those atheists... As again they have every right to be the way they are.
That's what most don't see... you don't need a degree to be correct. The problem is that if you don't have a degree... chances are you might be wrong. When those attack you on not having a degree without actually arguing with your arguments... it's an ad hominem and this person has achieved nothing.
...because those who actually sell these degrees and are making money off of these degrees have essentially sold society this idea.
Oddly enough I don't think I have. I'll go check that out a little later. I can only go and agree with you on this one myself. There are many chicken-shit atheists who don't want to be out there and say offensive things.
I forget the name that Martin Luther King Jr. gave to his fellow black men and women who thought he was doing something foolish or pointless. When he gave them a derogratory kind of name... he took heat from those people because they didn't think he was the way to bring change. History obviously shows who was the correct one. I think history will also show who was the correct one... though don't hold your breath on having a day off work for RRS day or Dawkins day.
Who is this?
If you guys harm atheism... what did stalin, mao, etc do? These morons need to remember that atheism is not a group which can be harmed. The best the RRS can do is make the RRS look like fools. Frankly I've yet to see that happen...
Quote: This might be news
That seems more like conservative american values to me. Just because we believe in one less god than the christians doesn't make us any better. We're all human and subject to being narrow minded. Is this the baggage of christianity? I doubt it. Christian countries across the world follow the same book and have vastly different views on sexuality.
I don't agree with some of the actions of RRS, but some people go too far. You have to admit though that the RRS dishes out insults without much restraint. RRS shouldn't be surprised when it comes straight back at them.
Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog
Ragdish: Quote: It is
Ragdish:
Well, if Metzger is an Atheist while not being particularly rational, then it clearly shows the need for the term Atheist. It's a mistake to start using all these euphemisms that may or may not fit people in order to avoid controversy. Let's face it, none of us believe in God, but I think all of us are prone to be irrational and unreasonable occasionally, although not in the metaphysical sense. Nazis aside, I've seen a couple of fellow atheists having had fairly irrational views imho, but I want them to be active rather than silent. The only word apart from Atheist that would do is Materialist. The rest is crap. Especially "bright".
Anyway, the reason why I signed up here was to say that as long as Atheists are diverse then our diversity should be treated as a strength, not as a weakness. I'm all for the biologists and the physicists. They do a great job. But methinks there's plenty of room for lapdancers and whatnot. I'm Norwegian, and in the early 90s Black Metal had a renaissance here. It's a very antichristian music style, and some of these people burnt churches. (Luckily, the arson era was short lived and I personally got into the music for other reasons.) Anyway, the music lived on and still does. It's not rational. Not at all. It's pure escapism with focus on Satan and goatworship.
What I'm getting at is that Black Metal reaches some people that would never touch The God Delusion. And for teenagers it's a chance to ditch all values and rediscover which values are important. You'll find similarities between Black Metal/Satanism and Objectivism. I don't have time to write much longer, but what I'm saying is that while Black Metal may look like Dawkins worst nightmare it attracts people whom otherwise would simply see him as a some professor geezer. (And if you think of the leftist postmodernists who are a bunch of arrogant pricks, then they tend to prefer cranky subcultures than scientists any day.)
So that's why no-one should worry about the RRS. The RRS can shake up people whom otherwise would take no notice of what's going on. So let the RRS do their job, and you other critics can instead provide a nerdy but polite alternative.
[url=http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com]
GodBeGone wrote:
{DOUBLE}
"We don't have to justify the things that don't make any sense anymore."
~former Scientologist Greg Barnes
xenutv.com
GodBeGone wrote: I can't
"We don't have to justify the things that don't make any sense anymore."
~former Scientologist Greg Barnes
xenutv.com
Jolt wrote: I don't agree
Check the record. You will rarely find anyone in the RRS, especially core members, dishing out any kind of insult unless that insult is richly deserved. You have to remember that we are regularly dealing with people saying things that would make them the subject of mockery in any conversation except one about religion. This exaggerated level of respect for religion is one of the things we want to attack.
You also have to remember that, by implication or direct statement, many of these people hold that we are immoral by definition, and that they would like us to believe that we are going to burn in eternal torment for our lack of belief. Basically, they are attempting to use death threats (only directed at our souls rather than our bodies) to scare us into shutting up. I don't see why such people deserve even basic politeness from us, and I would hope that our behaviour in insulting and ridiculing them when they resort to these tactics would inspire others to do the same thing. We are still ahead of them morally and socially, because if we sank to their level we'd be threatening violence.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Strappado wrote: Well, if
That is a great post Strappado, and right on the money, IMO. There are a lot of ways to be an atheist and we shouldn't be turning our fire on people just because they take a different approach. Yes, our diversity must be seen as a source of strength. The only line I would draw is if an atheist resorted to violence of some other such morally reprehensible activity. I prefer to leave such to the theists, as they show such great enthusiasm for them.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
GodBeGone wrote: I can't
Notice the "I can't imagine" here... you are clearly invoking an argument from ignorance here more or less.
The fact however is that Catholicism(given your pope reference) does change. It is not because the pope reread the bible and found new information... it is because outside forces to the church and bible have found a pure contradiction to their beliefs. Therefore they have to change. The catholic encyclopedia basically contradicts itself now because of their take on omniscience. They no longer believe in true omniscience. Their God has limits in that it cannot create a Square-Circle.
The fact however is that there is change occuring from outside. Eventually the concept of God will more or less be a limited alien entity which doesn't really fulfill the my God has a larger dick than your God. You will suddenly see an exodus from these religions. We may even be seeing this already today. Less than 25% of their adherents go to church weekly for catholicism. Less than half the adherents actually go to church. How many of those people who don't even go to church are anything more than purely apathetic about religion to beginwith? I would bet a pretty large quantity.
When the studies come in and are showing that a vast majority of younger kids are infact of the homer-simpson type... or infact atheist. The churches are going to become very dangerous because they know that they have lost power. The catholic church in my area is very much seeing this. The diocese Bishop is thinking that this change may be due to priests raping little children so he is actively looking for this evidence and publically releasing the information. He is in denial of the fact that media has shifted against the traditional go to church... to the stay at home because church is boring or meaningless. Which is also another perfect example of how the catholic church deals with this external change. They have released a set of things that all catholics must follow. You must go to church at minimum twice a year. Twice at easter or once at easter and once at christmas. Where you must give $. IF you aren't doing this... you aren't a catholic.
Tilberian wrote: Check the
I'm not going to sift through previous posts, but I've seen it more than a few times. I suppose it depends on your definition of "richly deserved", but RRS mods tend to give a smackdown and then later have a rational discussion over an issue. I love how RRS trys to show how rediculous religion is and that we aren't affair to say it, but I suspect that many of the detractors are pissed by RRS's behaviour to other atheist in this perspective.
Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog
Jolt wrote: I'm not going
Well, Jolt, I'm going to wager a guess that I've been here more than you and I have never witnessed the behaviour you are describing. Mods issue the "smackdown" only after warnings and repeated, egregious violations. In general, we like to let theists make asses of themselves on these boards so that everyone can see the bankruptcy of their thought, so we are actually reluctant to boot someone who is just being stupid and making their side look bad. the smackdown only comes in for spammers and trolls who are not actually participating in discussions.
Don't really know how to answer your charge, since you can't point to any specifics, except to say it doesn't agree with my experience.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Jolt wrote: I'm not going
I'd like to see some of these posts where atheists were undeservedly attacked. Your refusal to "sift through previous posts" seems to indicate that it would be difficult to find. If it's something obscure and rare, then why are you characterizing us as people who do this regularly?
It seems that most people who have beef with us are either misinformed or have little personal experience with us. Especially considering what I just posted. If an atheist comes in here being confrontational and rude, he'll get rudeness in return. If somebody makes a valid criticism politely, that is an entirely different matter. So, which camp do you fall into? Have you bought whatever BS has been spread about us or what?
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -Thomas Jefferson
"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." -Albert Ellis
kellym78 wrote:
I said that I wasn't going to sift through past posts for examples, because:
1. it is very tedious. There are well over 20.000 posts; trying to find something I read more than a week old is very difficult.
2. I believe RRS would find that they were totally in the right.
I think what it comes down to is a difference in discussion philosophy. I personally, and I don't believe that I'm alone on this, want to consider new things. It doesn't matter if they are opinions accepted by a majority of scientists, philosophers, or whatever; It doesn't matter if RRS believes it is wrong. In the end, when I consider something that may be controverial I only learn more (I don't know if any of this is making sense, but I'm trying).
Now when RRS slams someone for even considering a controversial idea, I can imagine how people could get pissed. I can really understand it if someone gets steamed when they are refered to as a theist (ouch). I could probably think of one or two more reasons that people might be mad, but I think that the majority of the haters you are refering haven't even posted here.
I stumbled upon the other Rational response squad site a few days ago, and I have to say that's some mean shit. I don't care how you dress, what your day job is, or whether you have a college degree or whatever. They don't either. Christians for the first time in the U.S. have a group of people challenging the myths that they spent so long cultivating. That's why they are pissed.
As you said in the original post: Atheism means one thing-not having a belief in a god. Atheist attitudes, political opinions, and morals are (surprisingly!) just as varied as the population in general. When RRS picks a controversial tact, then they are bound to take flak from everyside. That's life.
Which side am I on? I don't pick sides.
Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog