Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Convention

[tuxbox]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Tell me, does secularism follow from (among others) atheism? I think it does.

I am an advocate of secularism and I am not an atheist. So, it does not necessarily follow.

Tell me, does winning over people to your viewpoint* follow from both atheism and secularism? I think it does.
Tell me, does talking about social issues follow from winning over people? I think it does.

*Note: I'm not only talking about de-converts, but simply having people accept that secularism is a good thing.

Tell me, does being hostile to potential allies help win them over?

Tell me, how does the promotion of science and reason follow from atheism? I've seen some very unscientific and unreasonable atheists, so surely that's not part of the atheist movement. After all, not all people share the same values. Heck, I've even seen atheists who don't care if religion is in or out of politics and education, so THAT can't be talked about either!

Science and reason do not follow from atheism, considering there are more than a few non-atheist who believe in the promotion of science and reason.

How would you define "Feminism"? In my view, it means that a woman is as important as I am, that I will not regard her as a mere object, that I won't put her in an uncomfortable position because I'm horny and that I won't discriminate against women. That's it and that's all Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina and co. stand for. If you disagree with any of the above, then YES! you are a misogynistic asshole and/or abusive.

I am for women's rights and I understand that inequality exists. So my problem is not with the ideas of Feminism, but instead my problem is with the hypocrisy of the Feminist Groups in America. When that douchebag Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, every Feminist group in America went batshit crazy. However, when conservative women are attacked by people like Bill Maher there is not a peep from these groups. It would appear that women's rights only extends to liberal women in this country.

How would you define "Social Justice"? What is advocated by a fair number of people in the atheist movement is respect, tolerance and equality for people of all skin colours, mental states, physical states, religions, etc. etc. The same conditions as above (don't objectify them, don't put them n awkward positions, etc.) apply. If you disagree with any of the above, you're racist/homophobic slime.
And once we get past the issue of having the same rights for "them", maybe we can regard them as part of "us". Sadly, it seems the way is still quite bumpy and long.

Again, my problem is not with equal rights for all people. My problem is with how some of the advocates of Social Justice wish to achieve it.

Is that a complete list?

No

Why doesn't it include advocating skepticism on a broad level? That's one of the topics you'll often hear at atheist conferences.

I am not seeing how advocating skepticism is a hurdle for the movement.

Why doesn't it include political challenges to atheism?

That would fall under the category of the powerful religious lobby.

Why doesn't it include secularism?

How can secularism be a hurdle? If America was a secular country there would probably not be an Atheism Movement.

Why doesn't it include social issues and feminism?

Because social issues and feminism are separate and not exclusive to secularism.

I'll be sure to have a blog post on this topic.

I look forward to reading it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Tell me, does secularism follow from (among others) atheism? I think it does.
Tell me, does winning over people to your viewpoint* follow from both atheism and secularism? I think it does.
Tell me, does talking about social issues follow from winning over people? I think it does.

*Note: I'm not only talking about de-converts, but simply having people accept that secularism is a good thing.

But they are not parented to one another, Inferno. Secularism and Atheism are two alternate ideals that just so happen to grasp hands very often.
Take, for example, Shinto or Buddhism. The majority of their practitioners would weigh that they are atheist, and a running joke is "Superstition up until you absolutely need it." And, by all counts, both of them are very secular belief systems in the first place.

How would you define "Feminism"? In my view, it means that a woman is as important as I am, that I will not regard her as a mere object, that I won't put her in an uncomfortable position because I'm horny and that I won't discriminate against women. That's it and that's all Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina and co. stand for. If you disagree with any of the above, then YES! you are a misogynistic asshole and/or abusive.

I think the issue here is not whether he believes that women should be treated as equals to men - it's that in several instances that can be recalled there have been things that seem, on little twists, to be making mountains out of molehills or when it seems like one side is getting hyper-displayed over another when something is most likely a uniform problem rather than one focused towards a specific group of people.

AKA "Special Treatment"

For example, I'm sure that there were men out there whom had to turn down advances from women (I have on several occasions from over-drunk chicks and dudes). I consider turning down advances to be just another social interaction. If I had a major blog about men issues, I wouldn't have published it nor expected an emotional plea to a public outcry for men's rights to being comfortable in an environment where flirting and advances are going to be commonplace anyways (because there's humans there).

To be 100% honest, I don't like the idea of Feminism because I already treat women the same with only a few, old-fashioned sentiments (ladies ride in the front seat - especially in a dress, so they don't ruin it. etc.).

If you want to be treated equal with others, then don't make yourself different than anyone else in the same situation.
Don't say "it's because I'm a woman" or "the majority of this group is men." Say that they're harassing you and report them properly. If I was being harassed by a woman I didn't feel comfortable with, I would report it to an administrative authority at an event and let it work itself out. If it continued I would report them to police - and they could take care of the rest. I wouldn't demand "men's rights" or anything along those lines if it occurred.

Do any of these conventions have a means of reporting persons that anyone could have used? Were they turned away by administration because they were female? Did they not talk to security (which, by the way, are at most major conventions and gatherings) about the issue? Could police not be contacted if the issue escalated?

If the answer to these are anything but Yes, No, No and No then there's room to make into a discussion and something is seriously wrong in the first place - but if the answer is aligned then the same options would be available no matter what the instance is and regardless of gender, race, or whatever have you. A black atheist female could go use the same process that the white male pagan could go use and report anyone who is harassing us for any reason.

=================

I don't support Feminism. I support what I do every day of every year - not giving a fuck about who you are, what you worship (or not) or what you look like - and treat you the same as everyone else, with only variations existing in the realm of who's a bigger asshole than the rest.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Apologies for not replying sooner, busy week.

I am an advocate of secularism and I am not an atheist. So, it does not necessarily follow.

Read what I said. I said "among others". Secularism can come from a number of positions, but I'd say you're almost guaranteed to be a secularist if you're an atheist. (Rare exceptions like Alain de Botton notwithstanding.)

Tell me, does being hostile to potential allies help win them over?

I replied to this way earlier:

Inferno[/url]"]2) That being said, if people don't agree with some basic, social norms: Fuck em. I don't need them. Some things just aren't optional. If you're a racist, I don't want you in a conference I attend. If you're abusive, homophobic, misogynistic... fuck you, I don't need you.

Of what worth is my position if I'm a little sell-out whore who'll compromise the ideals of the movement (whichever movement that may be) to gain a few half-hearted allies?

Science and reason do not follow from atheism, considering there are more than a few non-atheist who believe in the promotion of science and reason.

That's funny, because it was YOU who said that they do. Let me remind you:

Tuxbox[/url]"]1) How does promoting “Social Justice and Feminism” logically follow getting religion out of politics and education, and promoting science and reason?

In fact, I was making the very point you made above: Science and Reason do NOT NECESSARILY follow from atheism. Neither does social justice, not necessarily anyway. And yet, you bitch and moan when people talk about the latter, but not when they talk about the former. THAT'S what annoys me.

I am for women's rights and I understand that inequality exists. So my problem is not with the ideas of Feminism, but instead my problem is with the hypocrisy of the Feminist Groups in America. When that douchebag Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, every Feminist group in America went batshit crazy. However, when conservative women are attacked by people like Bill Maher there is not a peep from these groups. It would appear that women's rights only extends to liberal women in this country.

Great! Then why the whole drama? Here you have men and women sitting down to talk about these issues, yet you complain. Why?

Again, my problem is not with equal rights for all people. My problem is with how some of the advocates of Social Justice wish to achieve it.

You have a problem with people talking about the issue? You make little sense.

Because social issues and feminism are separate and not exclusive to secularism.

But they are a part of them. That's where we disagree: I believe we should be free, at atheist conferences or others, to talk about whatever issues are most pressing. At the moment, "Social issues and feminism" happen to be in that category.
You, on the other hand, would limit discourse to only those issues that are at the core of the movement. I tried to show, and have apparently failed to do so, with the list provided, that there is no one subject that's at the core and neither is there a complete list. Instead, issues pop up and disappear again.

The topic "Ignorance of the general population" should be in a science conference, not an atheist one.
The topic "A powerful religious lobby" could equally well be in a political, religious or a few other conferences.
The only topic absolutely exclusive to atheism would be "misconceptions about atheism".

If you look at various comic-cons and so on, you'll notice that talks were often about "issue A in the context of comics". That issue may be emancipation, racism, religious tolerance, etc. etc. But wait, those topics are not exclusive to comic-cons, so they shouldn't talk about those issues.

Bullshit. The whole idea of such conventions is to look at a variety of issues from your perspective. When looking at "feminism", what changes when you switch from a religious role (generally a conservative Christian or fundamentalist Muslim one) to a non-religious role? When looking at "secularism", what changes when you switch positions?

But they are not parented to one another, Inferno.

I never said they were. There are lots of paths that lead to secularism, but atheism is one of those.

Do any of these conventions have a means of reporting persons that anyone could have used? Were they turned away by administration because they were female? Did they not talk to security (which, by the way, are at most major conventions and gatherings) about the issue? Could police not be contacted if the issue escalated?

If the answer to these are anything but Yes, No, No and No then there's room to make into a discussion and something is seriously wrong in the first place - but if the answer is aligned then the same options would be available no matter what the instance is and regardless of gender, race, or whatever have you. A black atheist female could go use the same process that the white male pagan could go use and report anyone who is harassing us for any reason.

Well, the answer was "No, N/A, N/A, No". That's the whole point Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, etc. were trying to make: There was no harassment policy at any atheist convention and, at least at the convention I was, no security. That has since changed.
So, was it worth talking about those issues?

But that's not all: You're talking about a trivial issue, "AKA Special Treatment".
I've posted a number of links where the issue isn't "special treatment" but blatant abuse. This post is just one of a number of posts I could link to. Should that be under the category "special treatment"? I hardly think so. The problem I've talked about before, which is also the one I've talked about now, is this: There is a part of the atheist community where misogyny is rampant. Real misogyny, the "you should be raped" and "you look ugly therefore your argument is invalid" kind.
What "authorities" do I, a hypothetical woman, turn to when I'm being openly harassed on the web?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Well, the answer was "No, N/A, N/A, No". That's the whole point Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, etc. were trying to make: There was no harassment policy at any atheist convention and, at least at the convention I was, no security. That has since changed.
So, was it worth talking about those issues?

Absolutely. It's horrific that any event or gathering that massive had none of those. But you don't need a "no-harassment" policy - that's commonplace law of any place you could reasonably hold a gathering - if you're feeling harassed, there should be avenues to pursue in order to halt it.

But that's not all: You're talking about a trivial issue, "AKA Special Treatment".
I've posted a number of links where the issue isn't "special treatment" but blatant abuse. This post is just one of a number of posts I could link to. Should that be under the category "special treatment"? I hardly think so. The problem I've talked about before, which is also the one I've talked about now, is this: There is a part of the atheist community where misogyny is rampant. Real misogyny, the "you should be raped" and "you look ugly therefore your argument is invalid" kind.
What "authorities" do I, a hypothetical woman, turn to when I'm being openly harassed on the web?

What?
Harassment and trolling on the internet by absolute and total strangers? How horrific!
I'm sure that only women experience the extreme pain of being harassed on the intertubes for stances they hold and trolled by random strangers on the internet for no other reason than they're a figurehead position.
Popularity is a funny thing - the abuse literally comes with the field of being a popular opinion with an open forum by everyone, regardless of male or female. Or, are you going so far as to say that only women are harassed on the internet to such an extent?

Then what is a solution? Well, I, personally, ignore negative criticism from idiots and filth. I don't have any "cyber police" to call when 13 year old children call me niggerfaggot over the internet because I wreck them in videogames or discussions. If it keeps up, I report them and just block them - easy fucking day. I don't pay idiots too much mind.
If they threatened my personal life, then I'd wait until they did it and have my way at the world's most satisfying lawsuit. If I felt a real and present threat was existent, I would talk to actual authorities.

When anyone else on the internet is faced with hate, do they break down and cry? Do we say "fuck all of the haters, I'm out!" In short, do you see anyone else holding a popular opinion ragequitting the internet due to a bunch of trolls? Some, yes, but most: not.
If they threatened my personal life, then it would become real and at that point I would talk to physical authorities... But when it comes to internet shittalk, there's a point at which any reasonable, objective person would have said "Oh dear. Looks like I need to stop sucking and start getting on your level. Enjoy that." It either breaks you, or you ignore it and shrug it off as internet trolling by idiotic cowards.

 

[tuxbox]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

This conversation should not be in this thread. So this will be my last response.

Read what I said. I said "among others". Secularism can come from a number of positions, but I'd say you're almost guaranteed to be a secularist if you're an atheist. (Rare exceptions like Alain de Botton notwithstanding.)

I concede your point here.

Of what worth is my position if I'm a little sell-out whore who'll compromise the ideals of the movement (whichever movement that may be) to gain a few half-hearted allies?

Fine, be a dick then if that makes you happy, but it will hinder the progress of the Atheism Movement in the long run

That's funny, because it was YOU who said that they do. Let me remind you:

Tuxbox wrote:

1) How does promoting “Social Justice and Feminism” logically follow getting religion out of politics and education, and promoting science and reason?

First off the above quote is in the form of a question and secondly I was referring to Atheism Movement's agenda. I never said science and reason follow from atheism. So I am a little confused as to what you mean.

In fact, I was making the very point you made above: Science and Reason do NOT NECESSARILY follow from atheism. Neither does social justice, not necessarily anyway. And yet, you bitch and moan when people talk about the latter, but not when they talk about the former. THAT'S what annoys me.

Great! Then why the whole drama? Here you have men and women sitting down to talk about these issues, yet you complain. Why?


You have a problem with people talking about the issue? You make little sense.

But they are a part of them. That's where we disagree: I believe we should be free, at atheist conferences or others, to talk about whatever issues are most pressing. At the moment, "Social issues and feminism" happen to be in that category.
You, on the other hand, would limit discourse to only those issues that are at the core of the movement. I tried to show, and have apparently failed to do so, with the list provided, that there is no one subject that's at the core and neither is there a complete list. Instead, issues pop up and disappear again.

The topic "Ignorance of the general population" should be in a science conference, not an atheist one.
The topic "A powerful religious lobby" could equally well be in a political, religious or a few other conferences.
The only topic absolutely exclusive to atheism would be "misconceptions about atheism".

If you look at various comic-cons and so on, you'll notice that talks were often about "issue A in the context of comics". That issue may be emancipation, racism, religious tolerance, etc. etc. But wait, those topics are not exclusive to comic-cons, so they shouldn't talk about those issues.

Bullshit. The whole idea of such conventions is to look at a variety of issues from your perspective. When looking at "feminism", what changes when you switch from a religious role (generally a conservative Christian or fundamentalist Muslim one) to a non-religious role? When looking at "secularism", what changes when you switch positions?

I do not have a problem with people within the Atheism Movement talking about those issues. My problem is with certain people within the movement wanting to make Feminism and Social Justice apart of the agenda. Why do I object to that? Well, in my opinion it will make it harder for the movement to gain traction in the US. I want secularism to seceded succeed in the US and if the Atheism Movement adds more negative baggage to it's agenda it will hinder it's original gaol. You once asked what are the hurdles of the movement in the US, well here is a video that should give some idea of what the movement is up against, and this is just for promoting secularism. Now let's look at the movement if you add Feminism and Social Justice to the agenda:

Social Justice in the US:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTieFijpi14 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoD0ceZxRH4

The majority of Social Justice advocates in the US are not atheists and do not really want secularism. There are also many atheist in the the US who are against the idea of Social Justice:

http://theatheistconservative.com/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/10/atheist-conservatives-and-libertarians-are-not-rare/#.US9BDVGMeLo

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19beliefs.html?_r=0

If Social Justice is added to the Atheism Movement's agenda, you are going to lose those atheists who support secularism.


Feminism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX5j4loNmuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApozFPboUAQ

The above videos are examples of why I am against adding Feminism to the Atheism Movement. It adds too much drama and it distracts from the original goal of promoting secularism. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

*Edited*

 

[Inferno]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

What?
Harassment and trolling on the internet by absolute and total strangers? How horrific!

Hytegia, I said that's "one of" the links I could post. Here's another one:

It's not just about a few women being harassed at the conventions, it's not just about a bunch of them being harassed on-line, it's about the continuing injustice toward women. Is a part of the debate currently directed toward abuse on the internet? Yes, but only because you'd expect the people who you're with to be halfway decent human beings. They're not, which is what prompted the discussion.

I'll try to break it down for you:
If you want to fight a phenomenon, I'd suggest you first have to close your own ranks, make sure everybody agrees. If they don't, you first need an internal discussion. You can still continue to discuss the issue (and strategies) with those who already agree with you (A+ or whatever it may be), but that's a small group so it won't get you very far. That's why these talks are needed everywhere, not just on atheist conventions. But I will argue, and continue to be correct about the topic, that these issues have a place at atheist conventions. (Again I must point out: They've been talked about for decades, so why are people starting to talk about it now? It confuses me!)

Fine, be a dick then if that makes you happy, but it will hinder the progress of the Atheism Movement in the long run

How is not compromising what I stand for "being a dick"? I'll show you the absurdity of your statement by substituting a few things:

"My position is one against slavery. I think we should not allow slaves and I allow no compromise. Slaves should be freed, allowed to fight in the military and work jobs."

"Wow, that's an extremist position. You won't convince the rest of us 19th century Americans, young Lincoln. Don't you think you should tone down your position to get more followers?"

"Not really, that would compromise my values."

"Fine, be a dick if that makes you happy, but it will hinder the progress of the anti-slavery movement in the long run."

Now I know, you'll tell me the positions can't be compared. I'm not too sure of that, but I'll leave that aside for another discussion.

First off the above quote is in the form of a question and secondly I was referring to Atheism Movement's agenda. I never said science and reason follow from atheism. So I am a little confused as to what you mean.

You said that one of the topics that can/should be talked about at atheist conventions is the "Ignorance of the general population". Is that correct?

I took it that your question "How does promoting “Social Justice and Feminism” logically follow getting religion out of politics and education, and promoting science and reason?" means that "social justice and feminism" do not have a place at atheist conventions, yet "politics, education and promoting science and reason" do have a place there. Is that correct?

If I've understood you correctly on those two, then my point should be quite easy to make out:
"Science and Reason do NOT NECESSARILY follow from atheism. Neither does social justice, not necessarily anyway. And yet, you bitch and moan when people talk about the latter, but not when they talk about the former. THAT'S what annoys me."

I do not have a problem with people within the Atheism Movement talking about those issues. My problem is with certain people within the movement wanting to make Feminism and Social Justice apart of the agenda. Why do I object to that? Well, in my opinion it will make it harder for the movement to gain traction in the US. I want secularism to seceded succeed in the US and if the Atheism Movement adds more negative baggage to it's agenda it will hinder it's original gaol. You once asked what are the hurdles of the movement in the US, well here is a video that should give some idea of what the movement is up against, and this is just for promoting secularism

You're not an atheist, so why do you ally yourself with them/us in that particular quest? Why not join hands with one of the nine secular organisations in the U.S. that are not atheist but rather Humanist? On secular.org I found a total of 11 organisations that endorse secularism, only three of them are atheist organisations.
Additionally, you probably won't win converts by talking only on a cold, abstract, purely reasonable level. My blog-post on that is nearly finished so I'll ask you to wait on that for a week or so. A quick peek: I argue that we can only ever succeed if we talk about social issues, if we temporarily become a guidance for people. I will explain, so please hold off on that for a bit.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

It's not just about a few women being harassed at the conventions, it's not just about a bunch of them being harassed on-line, it's about the continuing injustice toward women. Is a part of the debate currently directed toward abuse on the internet? Yes, but only because you'd expect the people who you're with to be halfway decent human beings. They're not, which is what prompted the discussion.

Yes, but that does not directly address the issue of "what does any of this have to do with lacking faith in Gods" and, more importantly, fails directly to note that women have all the same avenues to pursue as men in this issue in regards to harassment. And that everyone experiences some form of harassment on the internet, regardless of gender. That chart has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand!

I'll try to break it down for you:
If you want to fight a phenomenon, I'd suggest you first have to close your own ranks, make sure everybody agrees. If they don't, you first need an internal discussion. You can still continue to discuss the issue (and strategies) with those who already agree with you (A+ or whatever it may be), but that's a small group so it won't get you very far. That's why these talks are needed everywhere, not just on atheist conventions. But I will argue, and continue to be correct about the topic, that these issues have a place at atheist conventions. (Again I must point out: They've been talked about for decades, so why are people starting to talk about it now? It confuses me!)

That, very quickly, turns into a slam where people like tux and others will get woman-handled for simply shrugging it off for it's irrelevance in the area of atheism or the like. Or my stance that this shouldn't be an issue of Feminism, but of access to proper routes with equality to everyone to pursue - and that it will sort itself out in the ranks.

How is not compromising what I stand for "being a dick"? I'll show you the absurdity of your statement by substituting a few things:

"My position is one against slavery. I think we should not allow slaves and I allow no compromise. Slaves should be freed, allowed to fight in the military and work jobs."

"Wow, that's an extremist position. You won't convince the rest of us 19th century Americans, young Lincoln. Don't you think you should tone down your position to get more followers?"

"Not really, that would compromise my values."

"Fine, be a dick if that makes you happy, but it will hinder the progress of the anti-slavery movement in the long run."

Now I know, you'll tell me the positions can't be compared. I'm not too sure of that, but I'll leave that aside for another discussion.

That's not even the brass of the idea. They can't be compared because they're not even in the remotely same ballpark as far as simple logic syntax.

It would be directly comparable to, say, going to a baseball game where they are discussing rules and procedures and then requesting that all players be forced to wear and have training in the use of Shin Guards because there's slide tackling in soccer. Sure, there's sliding in Baseball but their reasoning is slung about soccer conditioning and circumstances - which, realistically, is irrelevant to playing Baseball. The best that could be said is that all players should have access to shin guards if that was the case.

I took it that your question "How does promoting “Social Justice and Feminism” logically follow getting religion out of politics and education, and promoting science and reason?" means that "social justice and feminism" do not have a place at atheist conventions, yet "politics, education and promoting science and reason" do have a place there. Is that correct?

If I've understood you correctly on those two, then my point should be quite easy to make out:
"Science and Reason do NOT NECESSARILY follow from atheism. Neither does social justice, not necessarily anyway. And yet, you bitch and moan when people talk about the latter, but not when they talk about the former. THAT'S what annoys me."

The problem here is that the other two have actual relation to the topic in some correlated form. If you ask any random scientist, you're likely to get the textbook reasoning for atheism - that it's because insufficient evidence and philosophical reasoning has been provided for the existence of such an entity.
If you were to ask an atheist feminist why they were an atheist, I would bet my wallet and card that the answer isn't going to be primarily "because religion has a history of repressing women."

Even if they did, it's illogical on any basis to have the two ideals associated. Atheism has more relation to reasoning and science than it does to feminism - which is minimal. Since you appreciate metaphors, it would be like me wearing a Watchmen outfit to an Anime convention because it's an animated character whilst someone else is throwing a fit and demanding that their "How I Met Your Mother" outfits should win the cosplay contest and be a center issue.

... Additionally, you probably won't win converts by talking only on a cold, abstract, purely reasonable level.

And there's the problem with all of this: If you're not talking on an objective reasonable level, you're talking on an emotionally-ridden, less-than-reasonable level. If you're not being reasonable then how can one say that it's a reasonable decision?!

You might as well argue that children are justified in whining about candy bars since all they've done is ask "What can it hurt?" and begin raising emotional arguments over why they should have it (usually in tantrum form).

Also, it's not about "converts" - it's about what is right. If you don't agree, and instead are pleading on an "emotional level" for something rather than an objective, reasonable level then you're wrong. Religious fanatics use appeals to emotion and we swat them down left and right for using it in place of reasoned logic, but we'll let this one pass because it makes us feel better, regardless of how unreasonable the association and argument is?

Fuck that.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

My blog post is nearly complete, (and I have to admit, I sound like dotoree, having promised it for a month now) so I won't reply to all of this, I'll just pick out a few cherries.

That chart has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand!

The discussion was about the relationship of feminism and atheism. I said in the previous post you mention that I would only show one example of misogyny, but apparently that wasn't appalling enough for you so I provided another.
It doesn't have anything to do with anti-feminism on the internet, that's right, but that wasn't the discussion at all. I'll repeat my sentiment: There still is terrible misogyny and hatred of females, as many cases show. As human beings, we have a duty to stand up to that and as atheists, we have an added duty. (Which I'll explain at great length.)

So it's not that this "has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand", it's that you don't know what the discussion is about.
Which would explain both your quite ill-informed position on the topic but also the, in my eyes at least, reprehensible statements you've put forward.

That's not even the brass of the idea. They can't be compared because they're not even in the remotely same ballpark as far as simple logic syntax.

How can you have lived in this world for as long as you have and say this? Do we not live in a world where the rape and torture and subjugation of women is commonplace? So much in fact that a college Professor can seriously suggest that rape is OK as long as the victim is not harmed (e.g. impregnated, hurt, etc.) in any way!

And you want to say that's not comparable?

The problem here is that the other two have actual relation to the topic in some correlated form. If you ask any random scientist, you're likely to get the textbook reasoning for atheism - that it's because insufficient evidence and philosophical reasoning has been provided for the existence of such an entity.
If you were to ask an atheist feminist why they were an atheist, I would bet my wallet and card that the answer isn't going to be primarily "because religion has a history of repressing women."

And you're telling me what I said has nothing to do with the topic? Ridiculous.
As for what atheism has more relation to: Let an atheist be the judge of that, how about that for a modest proposal?

And there's the problem with all of this: If you're not talking on an objective reasonable level, you're talking on an emotionally-ridden, less-than-reasonable level. If you're not being reasonable then how can one say that it's a reasonable decision?!

And that's where you show your supreme ignorance on this issue, babbling absolute balderdash, to put it mildly.
Did I at any point suggest that we should abandon reason? That we should abandon objectivity? Nonsense.

If you'd have had any sense at all, you might have considered... well, any of the arguments Christopher Hitchens gave, or Dawkins, or basically any other speaker. They all, at some point during their talks, decry the vileness of basically any religion, especially with regards to women. And they rightly ask: Who but a lunatic or a religious person (remember Weinberg?) would even think of something as reprehensible?

That's both objective (it is true that religion is the primary fuel for misogyny, that the female-genital-mutilation-community is entirely faith-based, that the stoning and honour-killing of women is entirely promoted by religion, that women are more repressed in more religious countries and so on) and it is also true that this argument is not free of emotions. Does that make the argument any less valid?

I'll further ask you to consider the point of view of a believer. Have you never heard a believer saying "What does Atheism offer in return?" or "No amount of reason would win me over" or any number of similar rejections?

Well I have. I also know a fair bit about how the mind works, so I understand that a "cold, abstract, purely reasonable" debate about God will get you only so far. The last push is usually some emotional trigger, the one that switches the believer to a doubter and finally to a non-believer.

Look at many of the de-conversion stories. In some cases, such as Matt Dillahunty, he got away from the constant reinforcement of religion and that was enough to flick the switch. (I might consider this the "rational atheist".) In other cases, you lose somebody or you get abused or some other emotional upheaval and that causes you to abandon religion almost over night. (That's the "angry at God" atheist, of whom there are few)

And in (from my experience!) the vast majority of cases, some comment has the person thinking about an aspect of morality and why religion poisons it. Watch the first few seconds of this video and you'll get what I mean. It's what also happened to me: I didn't have one "wham" moment where I was suddenly an atheist, but I had a few moments where people did unchristian things which in turn made me think. For example, my first and third religion teachers weren't nice people, though my second one was possibly the best teacher I had. But those two made me think "maybe I should check that out again". And I did. And I deconverted.

But you won't get there without some sort of emotional trigger. Not an argument, mind you. Not the kind of "but think of the children" argument, but a "here's what the Bible says" or "here's what fundamentalist Muslims do".
But that's not enough, because what you'll usually get is "well what's the alternative?". And as reasonable the pure essence of atheism is (that is to say "there is no evidence for God"), it alone doesn't do it for a large part of the people.

So what's my suggestion? Well, you emphasise the morality that could be, you stress the emotional side to a deconversion and you constantly criticize the immorality of, for example, Hell.

It is absolutely crucial that believers, both potential deconverts and simply the opposition, accept that atheists do have morals and that the basis for this morality is in fact a better one. How can this be done when the person the deconvert is talking to is a misogynist himself?
Does any of that mean that we should abandon reasoned argument? If you still think that, then you haven't understood a thing I've said.

It's crucial that we accept this one fact: There are two sides to a deconversion, but they can only be addressed if there is agreement within the ranks. And if there is not... well, I for one will not stand and be associated with racist and misogynistic crackpots, no matter any other views I would agree with. I'd rather go with people who show a capacity for learning... much as Christopher Hitchens did.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

My blog post is nearly complete, (and I have to admit, I sound like dotoree, having promised it for a month now) so I won't reply to all of this, I'll just pick out a few cherries.

All apologies taken. I needed a bit to review my own posts and yours.

Though the point you're attempting to establish is clear - an attempt to correlate this as an issue of rights over a mere instance of association - but the actual attempt is more of an emotional plea than one based upon logic, reason, and the concept of atheism as being, well, atheism.
It's not a civil-rights motivational speech. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you have to support certain moral stances or not. Being an atheist is simple - lack a belief in God or gods.
Is that not the story that is spun to every religious nutter that totes onto this forum attempting to correlate atheism with anything negative (and you, along with many others, would be overjoyed to point out that atheism isn't all-inclusive of everything certain atheists do to them)? But when something you feel to be morally just, in which case others may not share your same viewpoint on it, comes along you would attempt by any stretch of the tide to correlate atheism to it.

Creating a moral code for acceptance into a status implies dogma.

The discussion was about the relationship of feminism and atheism. I said in the previous post you mention that I would only show one example of misogyny, but apparently that wasn't appalling enough for you so I provided another.
It doesn't have anything to do with anti-feminism on the internet, that's right, but that wasn't the discussion at all. I'll repeat my sentiment: There still is terrible misogyny and hatred of females, as many cases show. As human beings, we have a duty to stand up to that and as atheists, we have an added duty. (Which I'll explain at great length.)

I'm dying to read this. Since we're talking reasonable logic, then would you mind formatting your ideas in the realm of a proof?

In this instance:
a = Atheism which is a grouping that contains
A = Atheist

f = Feminism which is a grouping that contains
F = Feminist

c = Communism which is a grouping that contains
C = Communist

A is in group a.
A is also in group f.
A, in this instance, is an F because F is in group f.
That does not mean that all people who are in group a should be f. Just as if I said,
A is in group a.
A is also in group c.
A, in this instance, is a C because he is in group c, but it is not directly implied that anyone else in a should be a C.

Atheism is simple - it's a lack of belief in gods or goddesses. If you want to make it something more than that then it's nothing more than your own personal moral code or outlook that you may or may not share with everyone else, but it doe not change what atheism is or is not. There's plenty of Feminist conventions and plenty of feminists who are not themselves Atheist, so there is no actual correlation between the two ideals other than a wicked persecution by a major world religion for the longest time (but that could apply to anything under the sun).

People have come to meet and greet with other atheists - it doesn't necessarily mean that they are feminists. You can support equality for all sexes without being a feminist nor associating cross-lines with them. Just as well, you can be an atheist and think that men are stronger on average than women and therefore the appalling divide between women and men workers in fields that require heavy lifting is not in need of any proactive diversity programs - something which inherently clashes with core feminism ideals and practices in lobbying.

So it's not that this "has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand", it's that you don't know what the discussion is about.
Which would explain both your quite ill-informed position on the topic but also the, in my eyes at least, reprehensible statements you've put forward.

I'm as reprehensible as a man looking at lettuce and a tomato and pointing out that they are not both vegetables - that one is actually a fruit by definition. No matter what your own personal ideals on it are, and no matter how well you think they are a salad together, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that they belong together on a salad though they may enjoy them with other dishes.
And one is a fruit.

This is the best analogy I can give you for it, really.

How can you have lived in this world for as long as you have and say this? Do we not live in a world where the rape and torture and subjugation of women is commonplace? So much in fact that a college Professor can seriously suggest that rape is OK as long as the victim is not harmed (e.g. impregnated, hurt, etc.) in any way!

And you want to say that's not comparable?

It's hardly comparable - not because of horrific suffering entailed - but because of topics of relevance. Lincoln's wife also consulted mystics and the like, are you going to say that his wife's pro-abolition position was also correlated with her desires to visit and consult with mystics? They were both held in a heavily negative regard by a majority and eventually turned out to be some for or stance comforting or correct to their onlookers.
Atheism and Feminism are two totally separate topics just as far as Mysticism and Slavery are.

And you're telling me what I said has nothing to do with the topic? Ridiculous.
As for what atheism has more relation to: Let an atheist be the judge of that, how about that for a modest proposal?

No real atheist would contradict your ideals, now would he?

Man. It seems like you're hinting at something familiar to what we usually mock people for openly - it's practically on the tip of my tongue. Ah, nevermind, it totally slipped me. But it's ridiculous to say that only people within a group can judge that group.

And that's where you show your supreme ignorance on this issue, babbling absolute balderdash, to put it mildly.
Did I at any point suggest that we should abandon reason? That we should abandon objectivity? Nonsense.

*Snipped For Space*

Your argument (I'm not going to call it "reason" - it doesn't deserve association with the word) for the associations of both stances is as such:
1) Because religion has oppressed women and atheists.
2) You wish for atheism as a movement to appeal to emotion and tug at the heartstrings of onlookers.
3) Ideals of morality in which you associate the feminism movement and their ideals as morally proper
4) Uniform doctrine ideals within atheism in regards to morals and politics of those morals.
5) Making atheists look good by association of these two onto onlookers.

The problem here is that in all of these points the true intent of your arguments for association of the two groups can be condensed down to personal preference, looking good, and conversion.
You want to do it because it makes you feel better, it makes you look better to critics, and it's easier to convert people when presented with moral stances that you determine to be unconditionally correct without getting into the firer points where people may (and do) have serious discrepancies on the topic. I don't support feminism for mere instances such as in the past where it's become more of an aggressive, volatile pride movement than a simple demand of equality among genders, but I would happily support equal avenues for all to pursue justice.
Plus, the fact that there needs to be a specific area were discussion about such problems can be voided is completely asinine over any other hard discussion or persecuted party.

1 in 10 Rape Victims are men, and studies show that most will go unreported due to a societal pressure built up around such labels - and men are just as able to be offended or react dramatically to sexist insults or actions as anyone - so why is all of the bend towards catering to specifically as if these are women-only issues?

Does any of that mean that we should abandon reasoned argument? If you still think that, then you haven't understood a thing I've said.

Injecting heartbleeding tugs of empathy into a discussion just fogs the air so that people can't see your true argument for it's value.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Reason =/= Logic. Logic may be included inside the scope of reason and rationality but its not the only piece to the puzzle. Empathy can also fit inside the scope of reason and rationality. One can use both logic and empathy in an argument and that argument can still be classified as reasonable or rational. Try it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

Reason =/= Logic. Logic may be included inside the scope of reason and rationality but its not the only piece to the puzzle. Empathy can also fit inside the scope of reason and rationality. One can use both logic and empathy in an argument and that argument can still be classified as reasonable or rational. Try it.

I can't be the only one annoyed because the association of two completely different topics is being made because of solely-PR reasons and is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of deities or lack thereof.

 

[tuxbox]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

I can't be the only one annoyed because the association of two completely different topics is being made because of solely-PR reasons and is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of deities or lack thereof.

You are not the only one.

 

[tuxbox]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

You're not an atheist, so why do you ally yourself with them/us in that particular quest? Why not join hands with one of the nine secular organisations in the U.S. that are not atheist but rather Humanist? On secular.org I found a total of 11 organisations that endorse secularism, only three of them are atheist organisations.

I support the atheists in America because they are better organized and they are well funded. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a really good example.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Setting up a Religious "Safe Zone" Tent - Atheism Conven

You're not an atheist, so why do you ally yourself with them/us in that particular quest? Why not join hands with one of the nine secular organisations in the U.S. that are not atheist but rather Humanist? On secular.org I found a total of 11 organisations that endorse secularism, only three of them are atheist organisations.

There are also atheists who are not feminists, so why do you align yourself with them/us in that instance? Why don't you join an organization that is not particularly atheist, but actually feminist and participate in their gatherings and rallies if you want to participate in forwarding the rights of women and belonging to what is essentially a special interest group shaped about forwarding the rights of women as opposed to equality among sexes?

Not to mention that religious people can also be equally feminist in just the same light so the rather abysmal equivocation between either side to feminism itself is purely a feminist movement and not purely an atheistic stance either.