Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:44 PM Sep 2012

Atheist Schism?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/6415/atheist_schism_/


September 20, 2012 5:53pm
Post by KATIE TOTH

Atheism has taken its lumps lately. Here on RD, in the wake of the murder of six Sikhs in Wisconsin, humanist chaplain Chris Stedman critiqued atheist bigotry and silence in the face of violence directed at religious minorities. Meanwhile, at least since last summer’s “elevatorgate”, outspoken atheist feminists describe continued, aggressive harassment from men in the atheist community.

In response some atheists have broken off and created “Atheism Plus” which aims to make space for women, people of color, and other marginalized groups within an atheist movement that's historically white and male.

The idea crystallized as most atheist organizing does—over the Internet. Feminist blogger Jen McCreight had already been brainstorming with other activists about a new secular social justice group. But it was McCreight’s personal frustration with online harassment that led her to write a blog post demanding a ‘third wave’ of atheism.

We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.


The feedback was overwhelmingly positive. One commenter suggested “A+,” others ran with it, and McCreight bought the domain name. The designation stuck and there are now over 1500 members.

more at link
88 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Atheist Schism? (Original Post) cbayer Sep 2012 OP
Uhm, no. Just another attempt to make non-belief look like religion. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #1
Hope springs eternal. JNelson6563 Sep 2012 #5
Exactly, most atheists are not organized, at all Warpy Sep 2012 #78
Yep. And why expect atheists to speak up when there is violence aganist religious groups stopbush Sep 2012 #79
The number of incidences of harassment aren't that high. JoeyT Sep 2012 #2
Excellent synopsis and very good news about the changes you are seeing. cbayer Sep 2012 #4
Pass the popcorn... onager Sep 2012 #3
Selling t-shirts is not capitalism. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #10
LOL, ERV. JoeyT Sep 2012 #21
Just pointing out an alternative source of information. onager Sep 2012 #43
I take it, then, you oppose Atheism+. rug Sep 2012 #35
You're partly right onager Sep 2012 #41
No, it suggests this to me. rug Sep 2012 #42
He's referencing the JoeyT Sep 2012 #44
Oh boy! Where to start here. longship Sep 2012 #6
I agree that schism is an inaccurate and inflammatory term in this context, but cbayer Sep 2012 #7
As I wrote, it is a political move. longship Sep 2012 #8
In order for there to be a schism there has to be a single body to divide. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #9
Aw that's just a minor detail. trotsky Sep 2012 #11
This PROVES that atheism is a religion! skepticscott Sep 2012 #12
I am much relieved... rexcat Sep 2012 #13
Guess this means that we're both skepticscott Sep 2012 #15
I assume you post here because you're interested in the range of discussions. pinto Sep 2012 #46
I assume you agree skepticscott Sep 2012 #47
Good point. I think "schism" was a poor use of journalistic hyperbole toward a snappy headline. pinto Sep 2012 #45
The other option skepticscott Sep 2012 #48
We had a nasty earthquake around here last night. Now I see why. n/t dimbear Sep 2012 #14
How often are you going to post similar threads? intaglio Sep 2012 #16
Feel free to post any threads you want. cbayer Sep 2012 #17
Ahh, yes, the "I'm better than you argument" intaglio Sep 2012 #18
Oh, please. Who is using the "i'm better than you argument"? cbayer Sep 2012 #19
You still have not countered my original points intaglio Sep 2012 #20
Don't expect anything substantial back from this one skepticscott Sep 2012 #22
A saying about an apple and a tree comes to mind. n/t trotsky Sep 2012 #23
and... rexcat Sep 2012 #24
It must be strange skepticscott Sep 2012 #25
Looks like... rexcat Sep 2012 #32
I don't think she actually uses the ignore option. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #33
Not sure which is scarier skepticscott Sep 2012 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author Leontius Sep 2012 #37
In case anyone was wondering skepticscott Sep 2012 #38
Some people... rexcat Sep 2012 #52
Actually I self deleted the post Leontius Sep 2012 #57
Did you say the same thing to your gay friends that weren't/aren't out? n/t Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #58
Wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2012 #63
Obviously you lack the understanding... rexcat Sep 2012 #65
I see you have totally ignored... rexcat Sep 2012 #87
Yes she does... rexcat Sep 2012 #36
You made this personal from your very first sentence in your very first post in this thread. cbayer Sep 2012 #26
Lame dodge...as usual skepticscott Sep 2012 #27
Issues intaglio Sep 2012 #28
I will do neither until you stop making it personal. Up to you. cbayer Sep 2012 #29
You selected the article, that choice was personal intaglio Sep 2012 #30
I post a lot of things I find interesting and think others might as well. cbayer Sep 2012 #31
Different day, same Atheist-bashing shit. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #39
Looks like in this thread it's atheists bashing atheists+. rug Sep 2012 #40
One would have had to not read the article to come away with that idea, imo. cbayer Sep 2012 #50
The term "schism" implies a disagreement over dogma. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #53
Schism can mean a variety of things, but the article talks about cbayer Sep 2012 #54
a move to make organized atheism and/or secularism more inclusive. AlbertCat Sep 2012 #71
There are some complaining that some atheists/secularist organizations are cbayer Sep 2012 #73
What do "white, straight men (who are) not always welcoming to others" have to do with atheism? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #76
That whole sliver/plank thing applies here. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #77
dominated by white, straight men AlbertCat Sep 2012 #81
Oh, shit Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #82
That's the problem with assumptions and why I asked for confirmation or clarification. cbayer Sep 2012 #83
Glad you haven't experienced any of the less than welcoming attitude that others have complained abo AlbertCat Sep 2012 #84
The complaints are coming out of atheist groups, so that may be why you haven't cbayer Sep 2012 #85
"The "schism" doesn't even seem to be about atheism." BINGO! cleanhippie Sep 2012 #74
A scism? Cool. I'll pick the side that doesn't have a belief in god. Evoman Sep 2012 #49
There is some delusion that being free from deity implies an evolved state. CBGLuthier Sep 2012 #51
I consider not needing fairy tales a more evolved state. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #55
How does it help you evolutionary? Are non-believers reproducing more effectively cbayer Sep 2012 #56
It was certainly the case in history Oregonian Sep 2012 #59
Not really accurate. There were scientists, who were often religious, who cbayer Sep 2012 #60
You are correct Oregonian Sep 2012 #68
I'm surprised Mendel had any time to study genetics with saying Mass every day. rug Sep 2012 #61
I'm surprised Mendel had any time to study genetics with saying Mass every day. AlbertCat Sep 2012 #72
Yes, he studied genetics because he liked to eat peas. rug Sep 2012 #75
Yes, he studied genetics because he liked to eat peas. AlbertCat Sep 2012 #80
Could it be he used science while, horrors, he believed in a religion. rug Sep 2012 #86
It is not a matter of being more evolved skepticscott Sep 2012 #62
I mean in the sense of social progress, not the Darwinian sense. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #66
I don't even know what that means, but it smacks of elitism and borders on bigotry. cbayer Sep 2012 #67
What's wrong with being elite? Oregonian Sep 2012 #69
What about in the political sphere? trotsky Sep 2012 #70
No, that's elitist too skepticscott Sep 2012 #88
So, is the opposite true? Or is it a near tie? 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2012 #64

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
5. Hope springs eternal.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:35 PM
Sep 2012

If only atheists would act like believers and all sign up with a local org! Then there's be splinters and schisms and all that crap religion has!1!

In reality most of us atheists are not involved with any like minded group and just go our own way. I know lots of atheists here in my part of the world who could not care less about being part of a group.

But then again we don't need to get together regularly to re-affirm our non-belief & listen to readings from a 3000 year old book authored by goat herders to garner "wisdom". I reckon that makes us "weird".

Julie

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
78. Exactly, most atheists are not organized, at all
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:21 PM
Sep 2012

and the only thing we have in common is not believing a word of whatever it is people around us profess to believe.

The sexism women in atheist organizations are complaining about is the same sexism that exists everywhere, the sexism that all women and men of conscience are fighting against and religious patriarchs are trying to perpetuate.

To call it some kind of schism among all atheists is disingenuous at best and laughably ignorant at worst.

We'd have to be united in order to split apart.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
79. Yep. And why expect atheists to speak up when there is violence aganist religious groups
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:26 PM
Sep 2012

any more that AAA members or The Elks Club should be expected to speak up when there's violence against religious groups?

If you're going to take atheists to task for not standing up against violence directed at the religious then you need to take them to task for every instance that they don't stand up to violence directed at anybody. I know of no person - let alone an atheist - who has the time to stand up and denounce every act of violence committed in this world.

The religious see atheism as the flip side of their religious coin, when atheism doesn't even have a coin.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
2. The number of incidences of harassment aren't that high.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:29 PM
Sep 2012

But they're high enough that something needs to be done about it.

The short version of Elevatorgate was Rebecca Watson saying a guy got on the elevator with her at 4 in the morning after she just spent an hour talking about how she hates to be hit on and invited her to come to his room. Guys, don't do that. That was it. It also wasn't exclusively what touched this off. What really started the fires burning was people asking for the inclusion of anti-harassment policies at events. Elevatorgate started a smolder, requesting anti-harassment policies is what created a firestorm.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a supporter of stopping harassment in the atheist/agnostic/freethinker community. I'm a supporter of stopping harassment, misogyny, racism, and homophobia in every community for that matter.

You can't say "Religion is misogynistic!" in one breath and "Shut it wimmenz, you're making us look bad!" in the next and expect to be taken seriously by anyone. If we're not going to be any better than the average religion is in our dealings with women, LGBT, or other minorities, the movement is useless and hypocritical. This is the basic argument of the A+ side.

Now as to the effect this is having, the last meetup I went to had as many or more people than the ones I used to go to. The difference was there was a considerably higher percentage of women, LGBT, and non-white people there. The old ones might as well have been Tea Party rallies, for all the diversity they had, which is why I quit going to them. Rather than shrinking the movement, this is actually making it stronger because there are quite a lot of people out there that weren't comfortable participating in it that are becoming more comfortable with it.

So it's not exactly a schism. What it mostly is is pushing back against a small vocal minority of assholes that want to feel superior by sitting around debunking bigfoot or UFOs all day, and anything that distracts them from that is unacceptable.

onager

(9,356 posts)
3. Pass the popcorn...
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:33 PM
Sep 2012

It's this weeks episode of the Atheist Reality Show!

You wouldn't know it from this glowing puff-piece, but many people of all genders in "the community" are currently pointing and laughing at Atheism+.

e.g., the Atheism+ board has a thread on "overthrowing capitalism." The same board where other A+ people are hawking T-shirts, jewelry and other overpriced junk featuring the A+ logo.

WTF, Comrade Wal-Mart?

Of course, cbayer and rug wouldn't know that because they just see "atheist schism!!!" and reflexively post. I'm pretty sure cbayer didn't bother reading the Comments to this article, where A+ is being mercilessly hammered:

Barbara Drescher - "The feedback was overwhelmingly positive." I suppose if you limit your reading list to the comments on Freethought Blogs, it might appear that way.



No kidding. That's one thing A+ has - a propaganda machine on the level of the pre-1989 Kremlin.

BTW, that appears to be an actual woman up there, disagreeing with the Official Story. Though you can never tell on the Internetz.

Abbie Smith is definitely a woman, if anyone wants to hear another side of the story. Bring your own popcorn, it's a big forum:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/

And I'll leave you with another woman who appears to be...somewhat angry at the A-Plussers speaking for her:

I have enough common sense to know that, as a woman, I do not want to be a part of any organization that thinks they need to dictate what is socially right and wrong, that I am overly-sensitive, need constant reassurance of my worth, and be led by the hand should anything wrong happen to me.

Fuck that shit! I grew up a long time ago. They are not going to treat me like a porcelain doll.


http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ah-number-four-in-surly-amys-blog.html


 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
10. Selling t-shirts is not capitalism.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:34 PM
Sep 2012

Investing in mass production of t-shirts using acumulated capital in order to increase your accumulated capital would be an example of capitalism.

Selling t-shirts is participating in a market economy.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
21. LOL, ERV.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:03 AM
Sep 2012

Did you know Republicans don't hate minorities? It's true! And here's a real live minority to prove it!

Congrats, you just used the Herman Cain gambit. It works about as well now as it did then.

Women requesting harassment policies = MAH FREE SPEECH IS BEING VIOLATED! CANT YOU SEE I'M SOCIALLY INEPT! ASPERGERS!!! REMEMBER THE THUNDERF000000T!!!!!

That having been my first visit to the slymepit in a while, I have to marvel at how little support Abbie managed to drum up.

Total posts 15564 • Total topics 137 • Total members 224

"It's small but it's fierce!" should be their motto.

On the upside, at least neither side has to deal with Kwok this time like we did during the Wars of Accommodationism.

onager

(9,356 posts)
43. Just pointing out an alternative source of information.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:59 PM
Sep 2012

FTB also seems to be getting smaller lately: Chris Hallquist, J.T. Eberhard and Daniel Fincke all left and went to Patheos. IIRC, Hallquist specifically said part of the reason was the recent insanity. Along with more money, always a good reason.

Oh, and I noticed P.Z. recently hired a "co-blogger," Chris Clarke. Strangely enough, Clarke seems to be just another overprivileged old white guy.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
35. I take it, then, you oppose Atheism+.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:32 PM
Sep 2012

"You wouldn't know it from this glowing puff-piece, but many people of all genders in "the community" are currently pointing and laughing at Atheism+."

That places you, logically, in the camp that holds that atheism has nothing to say about anything other than the absence of god(s). Whatever progressive agenda, if any, that you have must therefore have its roots in things other than atheism since, as I deduce from your jeering at Atheism+, nothing, political or otherwise, flows from atheism.

The next time you wish to place my name next to "reflexively post", bring something to the table.

onager

(9,356 posts)
41. You're partly right
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:41 PM
Sep 2012
That places you, logically, in the camp that holds that atheism has nothing to say about anything other than the absence of god(s).

Pretty much.

The next time you wish to place my name next to "reflexively post", bring something to the table.

I'll bring you a dead porcupine. If you don't get the reference, just Google that term + "FreeThoughtBlogs."

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
44. He's referencing the
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:50 PM
Sep 2012

"Go shove a dead porcupine up your ass" insult that a few people commonly use against open homophobes or misogynists. Which some people have bizarrely attempted to claim is a rape threat/joke.

I'll be damned if I get it. Either the attraction to the porcupine meme or the idea that it references rape in any way. Both are silly and over the top.

longship

(40,416 posts)
6. Oh boy! Where to start here.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:39 PM
Sep 2012

First, I am a bit stunned by the contrived confluence of an apparent Sikh attack non-response with l'affair de Rebecca Watson. Talk about non sequiturs! If you want to discuss Atheism+, stay on the fucking topic. I refuse to go into Stedman's diatribe on apparent atheist indifference for the Sikh attack. (link within the linked article)

To atheism+ of which I have posted here previously.

This is a big deal. There are apparently more than a few misogynists in the secular/skeptical movement. This is also true of the religious movement, the online gaming community, and in humanity in general.

But when the premier skeptical conference, TAM, all but refuses to listen to women complaints that they do not feel safe attending the conference unless the JREF, the sponsor, puts into place procedures to insure good behavior by attendees, there is a very big problem. The result of this disregard, a prominent woman skeptic, Rebecca Watson, very publically announced that she would not attend TAM. Whether this effected attendance is uncertain, but attendance was down for the first time ever, and women's attendance was down markedly.

This was an utter JREF failure. I put the blame directly on DJ Grothe who, as JREF president, had the responsibility. I also blame James Randi, who should know better and should have seen to DJ's removal. They took the apparent attitude that ignoring the situation would make it go away. Well, it isn't going to go away.

Many in the secular/skeptical movement were utterly disgusted by the horrible responses to Rebecca's pleas for common sense here. I am ashamed of what happened, although I suppose that there are assholes in any social movement of significant mass.

But given that, in the future if there are conferences which want women to attend, they had better put in place non-harassment policies. The thing about this is that it can be done very easily. We are genuinely a tight knit community. If I could afford to attend TAM, I would gladly volunteer to help police things. A simple hierarchy could be set up to preserve the peace and insure that women attendees feel unthreatened. After all, TAM attendees are just over a thousand or so. You wouldn't need many.

But that wasn't even attempted.

That's why Atheism+ came to be. But, let's be clear here. This is not a schism. It is a political move to punctuate a problem within all such communities and political movements. I support it, but I still call myself an atheist, just like many of those who call themselves secular humanists are also non-believers.

We are a big tent, and we have many organizations. There is nothing bad about the creation of Atheism+. Those of us who align with it see it as strengthening the movement as a whole. Just as secular humanists; just as the more general skeptics; just as those who call themselves agnostics.

The big picture hasn't changed.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
7. I agree that schism is an inaccurate and inflammatory term in this context, but
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:45 PM
Sep 2012

appreciate your input as to what is going on and how it needs to be addressed.

The *outrage* over this, both in the comments to the article and very likely in response to my posting it here, is most likely coming from the old guard who are uncomfortable with any threat to their authority and position of privilege within the already established organizations.

It happens every time a rather homogeneous group is challenged by others to become more inclusive.

Like you, I hope this new organization is effective in bringing the issues to the forefront, having them addressed and forming a stronger, more representative coalition to advance their stated causes.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
11. Aw that's just a minor detail.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:51 PM
Sep 2012

The important thing is that THERE IS AN ATHEIST SCHISM! Did you know that?!?

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
12. This PROVES that atheism is a religion!
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:54 PM
Sep 2012

Because atheists have SCHISMS...just like religious people! And how do we know that? Because cbayer posted an article that said so, that's how!

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
13. I am much relieved...
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:40 PM
Sep 2012

since I hang on every word that cbayer says. She is like an oracle when it comes to atheist issues.

and for the challenged

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
15. Guess this means that we're both
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 06:12 PM
Sep 2012

"from the old guard who are uncomfortable with any threat to their authority and position of privilege within the already established organizations."

All because we won't fall down and worship her and her lapdogs. Nothing like a good old-fashioned broadbrush smear from the self-appointed head of the broadbrushing police.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
46. I assume you post here because you're interested in the range of discussions.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:42 AM
Sep 2012

Why not just keep it to the group's purpose -

"Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

Thanks.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
47. I assume you agree
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:42 AM
Sep 2012

that anything that an OP brings up to justify or defend their post, or any smears they dole out against people who might criticize their posts (especially when they regularly scold others for that tactic, in an attempt to quell debate and criticism) are legitimate subjects for discussion.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
45. Good point. I think "schism" was a poor use of journalistic hyperbole toward a snappy headline.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:27 AM
Sep 2012

Happens all the time, in many venues, and always frustrates me in that it frames an article / discussion in simplistic terms.

Not sure there's any other option other than looking beyond the frame into the entire context. There will always be a headline. There will always be a context, as well.

One is often not the other.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
48. The other option
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:44 AM
Sep 2012

would be for the person posting it to inject a little critical commentary of their own right from the start, rather than simply flinging inflammatory or poorly argued crap at everyone else, and then sitting back and refusing to discuss it.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
16. How often are you going to post similar threads?
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:13 PM
Sep 2012

Atheism is not a monolithic organisation therefore there can be no "schism". Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of a deity or similar agencies. Some of the some of them form groups of friends who share other views in common - such as Atheism+ or the organisers of "Free Though Blogs". Some, myself included, become anti-theist and actively argue against the irrational belief in gods or other agencies. There are also many others who hold quite obnoxious views on subjects outside of the theist debate, think Ayn Rand or Thunderf00t, they are not schismatic they are people with obnoxious views who also happen to be atheist.

There is no "Big, Bumper Book of Atheism"

There are no anti-Bishops, Exquisitors or Youngers overseeing the True Unfaith.

There are no Congregations nor Communities of Nunks or Mons.

There are, however, very foolish people who hold that rational thinkers must have an irrational faith supporting their unbelief and those who hold that idea are, completely and unutterably, wrong.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
17. Feel free to post any threads you want.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:24 PM
Sep 2012

I find this interesting and worth following. If you don't, simply trash it.

That's what I generally do with anti-theist threads.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
18. Ahh, yes, the "I'm better than you argument"
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 08:40 PM
Sep 2012

Strange that you have no counter arguments to the ones I put forward here.

And I do start threads - when I feel I have valuable insight to impart, I just don't do it every time I see a poorly written news article based on a false premise.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
19. Oh, please. Who is using the "i'm better than you argument"?
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 08:42 PM
Sep 2012

The irony is stunning.

I'll keep my eye out for your valuable insights.

See you around the campfire, or not.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
20. You still have not countered my original points
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:25 AM
Sep 2012

As for the assumption of superiority that you displayed; in essence your response to my first post was that I do not put out many OPs and now you attempt to be ironic in the use of the word valuable.

Back at the campfire, however, the "news" article you selected is the what is under discussion.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
22. Don't expect anything substantial back from this one
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:53 AM
Sep 2012

She no doubt regards your challenge to her OP as "bullying", "Harassment", "persecution", "stalking" or a "personal attack". She has never engaged in a real, substantive discussion with anyone who challenged or disagreed with her in any but the most fawning and obsequious way.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
24. and...
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 08:49 AM
Sep 2012

it will come one day, she will say "I'm done with you" and she will block you so she can't see your posts since atheists who challenge her are either "bullies", "harassers", "persecutors", "stalkers" or it's "personal attack" which is most cases might have an element of projection on her part.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
25. It must be strange
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 08:57 AM
Sep 2012

to live in her little world here, where half of what's posted doesn't even appear. Kind of like reading classified documents where most of the substantial stuff is blacked out..except that she seems to rejoice in it.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
32. Looks like...
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 04:30 PM
Sep 2012

she went the "personal" route with the other poster and she has not responded to any of yours. Are you one of the lucky ones on ignore? I like being on her ignore list because I don't have to read her inane remarks.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
34. Not sure which is scarier
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 05:37 PM
Sep 2012

Someone who deliberately prevents themselves from seeing half of what's said in a discussion, or someone who sees it all and still manages to ignore everything that disturbs their worldview too much, and to leave any consideration of criticism or opposing points of view out of their thinking forever.

Response to skepticscott (Reply #34)

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
38. In case anyone was wondering
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 08:08 PM
Sep 2012

37. "Then the two of you must be scared shitless of me. I see and ignore 99 percent of your posts but not because they disturb my worldview. I just find them childish, boring and profoundly ignorable crapola. I am suprised at a few posts a very, very few posts."

To which I replied:

When one is respinding to childish, boring and profoundly ignorant crapola (as the posts from religionists here that aren't stolen from someone else typically are), why waste time being profound, when it's not worth the effort? If they posted anything that hadn't been debunked a hundred times, and that was worthy of real intellectual attention, that would indeed be new, but as it stands, scorn and derision is about all it usually deserves.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
52. Some people...
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:24 AM
Sep 2012

such as the one who deleted their post don't understand that it is a two-way street.

I for one am not "afraid" of anyone on a anonymous internet board let alone anyone cowardly enough to delete their post so the "two" this person was responding to could not see what was posted. The post is nothing new.

The religious on this board, for the most part, do not hold "atheist" views as worthy of anything. All they do is take offense and call us names such as bully, harasser, persecutor, stalker or the "that is a personal attack" line of manure. I get a lot more vitriol from the religious types when I am out in public and am asked what church do I go to and I admit I am an atheist so for the most part I tell them that I am not comfortable discussing my religious views with them and leave it at that.

Skeptiscott, I appreciate you post.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
57. Actually I self deleted the post
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:53 PM
Sep 2012

because I thought it was a childish act on my part. I would be interested in what you would call someone who is such a brave warrior like yourself on these boards but in real life displays fear of exposing themselves as an atheist would that be phony or coward ?

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
65. Obviously you lack the understanding...
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:02 PM
Sep 2012

of what atheists in this country have to deal with in this country when they come out of the closet. There are a lot of religious bigots in this country. From what you have posted here and previously you have no clue what is going on in the atheist community. Just keep your head in the san, that way you won't be bothered with the reality of our situation.

I would have a better chance of having an intellectual discussion with a brink wall than you concerning atheism and what we have to put up with in this country. I am no means a phony or a coward. Discussing my atheism is not worth the trouble. I also fear from the welfare and safety of my children and wife considering were we live. If you don't think that is real there is nothing I can do about it.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
87. I see you have totally ignored...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:22 AM
Sep 2012

post #58 and #65. Your silence is deafening for your lack of moral defense of your post!

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
36. Yes she does...
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:33 PM
Sep 2012

I had one person who had me on ignore and when she said she "was done done with me" I had two people who were ignoring me. So I do think she does use the ignore. When I got another religious person ruffled and their underwear in a bind I now have three people who are ignoring me. I must have been on a roll that week!

on edit: all I did was block her from e-mailing me. I don't have her on total ignore because I like to respond to some of her posts that I consider nonsense. If she wishes to ignore my posts or not respond, that is her problem, not mine.

on second edit: she has admitted, just recently, to putting people on ignore, but I did not bookmark the post like some other people on DU nor was I a moderator on DU2 so I did not have special access to posts by individuals like some who will remain unnamed!

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
26. You made this personal from your very first sentence in your very first post in this thread.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:12 AM
Sep 2012

If you wish to discuss issues with me, then you are going to have to refrain from doing that.

I would be glad to discuss the substance of this article with you, but I am not going to do it while having to defend my decision to post it here.

Ball is in your court, intaglio. You are correct. The article is what should be under discussion, not how often or why I post articles on this topic.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
27. Lame dodge...as usual
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:44 AM
Sep 2012

You have no intention whatsoever of ever discussing substantive issues with anyone but your lapdogs.

And no, he didn't make it "personal". He pointed out a rather odious characteristic of your posting style and way of offering up issues here...namely, that you continue to promote things that have been shown to be nonsense, over and over and over, even after you've been shown very cleary, over and over and over that they're nonsense, and without ever offering any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
28. Issues
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:39 PM
Sep 2012

The article is poorly written, yet you posted it. I have pointed out that the article operates from a false premise, that premise being that there is a monolithic structure to atheism from which there can be "schism".

You have posted the same sort of garbage about "atheist schism" before and have ignored all attempts to correct you. It is not insult to point out your continued misrepresentation of a rationally based philosophical outlook, as far as I can make out your posts regarding atheism are just attempts to rationalise a hatred of the concept of atheism.

Now, counter the arguments I made about the article in my first post in this thread or admit the falsehood of the article and it's premise.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
29. I will do neither until you stop making it personal. Up to you.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:50 PM
Sep 2012

I didn't write the article, I posted it. If you start from the premise that I am trying to rationalize a hatred of the concept of atheism, you are starting from an already distorted POV, because I am not. If you think what I post is garbage, I encourage you to ignore it. I don't have to defend what or why I post anything, and neither do you.

BTW, I posted a(nother) article today in support of organized atheism and their stated goals. Perhaps you only see what fits your agenda in regards to me.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
30. You selected the article, that choice was personal
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:14 PM
Sep 2012

Pointing to the stupidity of article is not an insult to either you or the article.

Pointing out you have posted similar nonsense before is personal but is accurate and is not an insult.

Pointing out that there are foolish people who irrationally support such untruths is not personal to you unless you believe yourself to be one of those fools.

In respect of your other post we are not discussing that in this thread but I will add that your description of that thread here describes "organized atheism"; there is no such thing. There are organisations whose members are atheist and several of those organisations may cooperate to share ideas; this does not make a monolithic organised atheism any more than a group of cats in the same household makes them a herd. Persisting in the idea that there is such a monolith does not make you correct.

Now answer the original objections about the article you selected or admit that it is wrong

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
31. I post a lot of things I find interesting and think others might as well.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:31 PM
Sep 2012

You may have noticed that I have had several exchanges in this thread with atheists and have said that the word "schism" is not one I agree with in this context. Then again, you might not have

At any rate, while there is not monolithic organized atheism, there is a growing number of organizations that represent atheists, secularists and humanists. Some share similar agendas - challenging church/state separation issues, decreasing bigotry towards nonbelievers, increasing understanding of non-believers and secularism and offering support and welcome to atheists who might need that. All good stuff.

There are increasing number of conferences, literature and news articles related to this. While many choose not to participate, others do.

Statistics I have seen have shown that the organizations that have been established are dominated by white, straight men. Some of those that have been looked to as leaders have been overtly misogynistic and unwelcoming. Some women, including those moving towards leadership positions, have complained about sexism and not feeling safe either at conferences or in internet spaces. Some members here have confirmed that.

There is power in numbers and collations here. IMO, atheist+ is trying to address some of the issues that may be holding the movement back. In doing so, it is my sincere hope that they work towards building collations and not towards a schism.

Now, I am going sailing to go get some groceries. Would be glad to return to discuss this with you further later.

Have a great Sunday.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
53. The term "schism" implies a disagreement over dogma.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:19 PM
Sep 2012

Athesits, by definition, do not have a dogma. This is typical close-minded thinking by religious people who see disagreements between Atheists as an argument between religious sects.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
54. Schism can mean a variety of things, but the article talks about
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:22 PM
Sep 2012

a move to make organized atheism and/or secularism more inclusive.

Many in this thread have agreed that schism is probably not the best word to use in this case. At any rate, the article is hardly atheist bashing. If anything, it speaks to strengthening the goals of organized groups, some of which identify as atheist.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
71. a move to make organized atheism and/or secularism more inclusive.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:42 PM
Sep 2012

Who's being excluded?

Women?


Anyone who doesn't waste their time with a god is welcome.... as far as I can see.

Atheism, organized or not, requires nothing else.


The "schism" doesn't even seem to be about atheism.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
73. There are some complaining that some atheists/secularist organizations are
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:50 PM
Sep 2012

dominated by white, straight men and are not always welcoming to others.

I am guessing that you fit the category that is in the majority. Am I right?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
76. What do "white, straight men (who are) not always welcoming to others" have to do with atheism?
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:53 PM
Sep 2012

Oh, right, nothing at all.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
77. That whole sliver/plank thing applies here.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:17 PM
Sep 2012

The few places where this is a problem are working on changing it and, according to those that felt unwelcome, are making movement toward a solution.

But let's, in the midst of trying to make atheists look shitty, take a look at the religious track record in this regard.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
81. dominated by white, straight men
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:31 PM
Sep 2012

I'm gay...


You are wrong as usual. And I'm not guessing that.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
82. Oh, shit
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:34 PM
Sep 2012

Now we have to kick you out of the meetings.

for the impaired (I'm pretty sure AlbertCat got it)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
83. That's the problem with assumptions and why I asked for confirmation or clarification.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:35 PM
Sep 2012

Glad you haven't experienced any of the less than welcoming attitude that others have complained about.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
84. Glad you haven't experienced any of the less than welcoming attitude that others have complained abo
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:50 PM
Sep 2012

Not from atheists.

And I don't belong to any organized atheist groups.

I used to get the news letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation... but bashing religion, which is what most of it was, is not only like shooting Jesus fish in a barrel, it's BORING after a while. (even here!)

I also used to get and enjoy the mag Skeptical Inquirer. But after about 2 years it started repeating (not literally) itself so I let it drop.

That's the closest I've come.

This whole thing seems to stem from some women getting propositioned in an elevator. Seems to me pretty normal. Straight men are after all, straight men. Women should complain if they want. But this seems to have gotten a little out of hand. I'm much more worried about women in the military frankly.

A scientific minded person, like myself, would point out that your dealing with over 65 million years of evolution. So go for it! But it won't be easy.

And it still has nothing to do with atheism.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
85. The complaints are coming out of atheist groups, so that may be why you haven't
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:56 PM
Sep 2012

seen it.

I think it's a little more complex than the elevator gate story. There are a few who seem to know more about it and they have posted in this thread.

While not in a position to know how much of this is true, how serious it is and how it might be impeding the progress of the organizations in question, I certainly support taking it seriously by those who are in charge.

The fact that sexism is often biologically based and driven and that it will be hard to challenge and change makes it even more important that it be brought into the sunlight.

I agree with you that it has nothing to do with atheism, per se, just with atheist organizations.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
74. "The "schism" doesn't even seem to be about atheism." BINGO!
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
Sep 2012

It's not about atheism at all. But try telling that to the believers, they think they really have something here and are not going to let it go.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
51. There is some delusion that being free from deity implies an evolved state.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:22 AM
Sep 2012

Rather than just one more way to kill 72 odd years.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
56. How does it help you evolutionary? Are non-believers reproducing more effectively
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:28 PM
Sep 2012

than believers? Are they adapting traits that are more likely to lead to their survival.

What you say is elitist and not backed up by data at all.

 

Oregonian

(209 posts)
59. It was certainly the case in history
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:18 PM
Sep 2012

Those who disbelieved the quasi-religious theory of spontaneous generation and instead honed in on germ theory tended to outlive the more primitive counterparts. Those who eschewed faith healers and prayer for modern medicine tended to live longer, too.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
60. Not really accurate. There were scientists, who were often religious, who
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:25 PM
Sep 2012

honed in on germ theory. This has nothing to do with "primitiveness" or religiosity.

Again, I will easily concede that those who reject scientific knowledge may place themselves at risk, but being a non-theist does not increase one's chance of survival. In fact, a case might be made that those who developed communities around a specific belief system may have improved their chances.

 

Oregonian

(209 posts)
68. You are correct
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:44 AM
Sep 2012

in that religion served its purpose during civilization's birth, when people survived by living in bands and tribes, often with some deity as a formulating principal. That doesn't say a thing about the veracity of said deities, or the efficacy of using deities -- rather than common sense -- to heal wounds, treat illness, etc.

Spontaneous generation was a superstitious belief, like God. When it was debunked, we were better off.
Prayer healing is a supersitious belief, like God. When it was debunked by the medical community, we were better off. Those are simply facts.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
72. I'm surprised Mendel had any time to study genetics with saying Mass every day.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:48 PM
Sep 2012

I'm surprised anyone who wasn't rich with many servants at the time had time to do anything at all but their tedious work.

If of course growing things to eat (like peas) was part of his duties.... or do you think monks live on air.... and just say mass 24/7

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
80. Yes, he studied genetics because he liked to eat peas.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:28 PM
Sep 2012

Could it be he didn't know he was studying genetics...because no one knew what that was then? Could it be he was just actually studying what happened when he cross bred peas? Could it be you don't seem to understand that was the mid 19th century? Maybe you think the monks just ran down to the Krogers for food?

Jesus H Christ on a stick!

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
86. Could it be he used science while, horrors, he believed in a religion.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:31 PM
Sep 2012

One can only wonder about the course of science had this friar (not monk) preferred broccoli.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
62. It is not a matter of being more evolved
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:57 PM
Sep 2012

from a purely biological standpoint. It is a matter of being an intellectually mature being, secure enough in one's place in the universe to put mythology in its proper perspective, rather than still clinging to the wrongs parts of it as potentially factual.

What you say is uninformed, and not backed up by any thought at all.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
70. What about in the political sphere?
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:36 PM
Sep 2012

Do you think that holding liberal, progressive opinions is "more evolved" than holding conservative, regressive ones?

Is a society "more evolved" if it has equal rights for women and minorities?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Atheist Schism?