So the atheist "movement"...

[Sparhafoc]

One thing that came into mind when I was reading this though was about the movement thing and how it can't represent all atheists. Think of the civil rights movement in the US in the 50s and 60s. They were a very diverse group with very diverse opinions on everything else but they agreed that blacks should have the same rights as whites. They were able to make a movement on the things they agreed on and strive for that goal, ignoring the other things the disagreed on to work for a better society. Now atheists are not exactly the same as atheism isn't a social goal like civil rights is, but I do think that pretty much all atheists do agree with a few points, like that atheists shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against and that religion should not have official power in a society. The question is can /should we ignore the other points and gather as a movement for those things we do almost universally agree on?

I would say not under the banner of atheism as all it represents is a term for what one doesn't believe in.

Instead, in accordance with what you've written, the civil rights movement was about something people believed in and could join together with like-minded people; as such, secularism is a positive principle that can provide a platform for such a movement.

A few years back I was part of a group involved in staving off the encroachment of Creationist fucktardery in the National Trust's site exhibit. The group was comprised of just as many Christians as non-religious. Whether the non-religious like it or not, the religious dramatically out-weigh them in terms of numbers and any democratic pursuit is only going to succeed by inclusion, not exclusive in-group tribalism. I can't imagine there's very many even moderate religionists who would attend an atheism convention, but there'd be plenty who'd feel passionate about secularism - they have a dog in that race.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I think it is rather the other way around. A rational/logical examination of the god question, just about inevitably leads to non-belief, ie atheism.
So instead of atheist=rational/logical, it is rational/logical=atheist.

While I agree with that, I'd like to point out: figuring out that one issue still doesn't justify the chest-thumping some people engage in. It's one issue, there are a million other things you can judge wrong either due to stupidity or bias.

Just because someone is right on one issue does not mean they are right about anything else, to loosely quote Matt Dillahunty. Something I have always agreed with. I know atheists that are 9/11 truthers, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc...

Dillahunty was all on board with Atheism+ and that's enough said.

/scratchy head

Clearly, it's not enough said because I honestly can't parse your meaning.

Are you making an insinuation here? That because X person happened to be in favour of something that eventually turned out to be shit, that their legitimacy or the content of their present ideas is somehow tarnished by that past association?

My viewings of Matt Dillahunty are far from exhaustive - but the few topics I've seen him speak on suggest that he's far more knowledgeable about Christianity than nearly every atheist I've ever met, that he's calm, cautious in his thinking, patient, and a genuinely decent human being.

A+theism may have been a shitfest, but I don't think that everyone who got poo slung on them is forever stained by association.

It is just well poisoning. Sad to see atheists use it, since it is used so often against atheists.

Seriously though, while I appreciate MarsCydonia's points about context of religious belief in peoples' lives, it still strikes me as odd that one would explore their rejection by, at least superficially, emulating that which they don't believe in.

It's the social-grooming tribalism component that makes me suspicious and uncomfortable, it always does. Tribalism seems predicated on zero-sum thinking and cannot produce anything but temporary, fleeting solutions, but more commonly produces only dogma and division.

If non-believers reject religion, shouldn't they have something better to offer than religion without the bollocks bits?

It seems like you are saying that gatherings are the domain of the religious. If you are saying that, I disagree. We are a social species and coming together to stroke egos seems to be apart of the human experience. Like I said before, I would love to go to Dragon Con, but that is to talk nerd. I can see an atheist convention be appealing to someone that walks to talk atheism. To each there own, after all.

 

[Tree]

One thing that came into mind when I was reading this though was about the movement thing and how it can't represent all atheists. Think of the civil rights movement in the US in the 50s and 60s. They were a very diverse group with very diverse opinions on everything else but they agreed that blacks should have the same rights as whites. They were able to make a movement on the things they agreed on and strive for that goal, ignoring the other things the disagreed on to work for a better society. Now atheists are not exactly the same as atheism isn't a social goal like civil rights is, but I do think that pretty much all atheists do agree with a few points, like that atheists shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against and that religion should not have official power in a society. The question is can /should we ignore the other points and gather as a movement for those things we do almost universally agree on?

To be fair, secularism isn't always as straight forward. Take the issue of abortion. There are secular arguments for and against it, it's not as simple as secular = pro-choice all the way up to 9 months no questions asked. Yes some think only a religious person would ever be against abortion or some forms of abortions.

I definitely agree atheists shouldn't be vilified for being atheists, but I'd say the same for Christians. I don't like how Madalyn O'Hair disowned her Christian son for being Christian, I find that just as reprehensible, especially given her position as someone who wanted to make being an atheist more acceptable in the wider society. Breaking up your family over such a trivial dispute is stupid.

I hope no atheists will go the SJW route of saying you can't be unfair to Christians cause "Christians have privilege", that's just so wrong (and so illogical while we're at it). But I wouldn't be surprised, this is what SJWs do, claim to be for equality but just drive a wedge between minorities and majorities by getting the minority to act like assholes. They already did the same with blacks and women and they'll say shit like "you can't be racist against whites cause whites have privilege so take it you cracker" blah blah

Agreed unequivocally.

If I am going to pay to attend an event, then I expect the speakers to be credible. Not just some hate loon from YT whose followers mistakenly believe he's a celebrity of consequence.

If someone like Sargon of fucking Akkad attends, then I am not sure it's really an atheism event so much as a little boy's club.

This I don't understand.

I'm not the conference going type (maybe I'll listen to a stream atltabbed at best), but I know there's more to a conference than just one speaker and one room.

At these events you can avoid certain speakers if you find them objectionable to such an extent. MM also had an anti-Sargon speaker and they debated.

Do you refuse to sub to Netflix/TV as well because you don't watch 90%+ of what's on them? Not the best analogy but it's close, I mean Vidcon had both Sargon and Anita Sarkeesian. People who didn't like Sarkeesian didn't need to be in the room she spoke. So just don't be in the same room with Sargon then.

There's also a Q&A where you can challenge a speaker directly with a tough question.

Dillahunty was all on board with Atheism+ and that's enough said.

/scratchy head

Clearly, it's not enough said because I honestly can't parse your meaning.

Are you making an insinuation here? That because X person happened to be in favour of something that eventually turned out to be shit, that their legitimacy or the content of their present ideas is somehow tarnished by that past association?

My viewings of Matt Dillahunty are far from exhaustive - but the few topics I've seen him speak on suggest that he's far more knowledgeable about Christianity than nearly every atheist I've ever met, that he's calm, cautious in his thinking, patient, and a genuinely decent human being.

A+theism may have been a shitfest, but I don't think that everyone who got poo slung on them is forever stained by association.

A+ was a really dangerous idea and that's why it reflects so badly on those who supported it.

On one hand they wanted to be the voice of atheists, but they also wanted every atheist to agree with their narrow points of view. They later took a step back but that doesn't mean you should automatically trust what they say, especially when they continued to act like cult members on their forum and ban people or call them jerks and bigots from the slightest disagreement.

It is just well poisoning. Sad to see atheists use it, since it is used so often against atheists.

A common negative stereotype of atheists is: "They're communists."

Another reason to despise A+, they were really trying to attach a far left ideology to being atheist. So much for convincing the religious to have more nuanced perspectives on atheists.

 

[Tree]

That's 2 men, unless I'm mistaken...
Shouldn't there be a "visible and large mass of people that agree on a cause"?

Did you forget their subscriber base as well on YouTube that's in the 5 or 6 figures? And many more I didn't get to mention like Zomgitscriss.

And I'll help you here: if you don't remember if Aron Ra explicitly said he represents all atheists, then it probably never happened because you're not alone in not remembering it ever happening.

You assume I only judge the words and never the actions.

I hope you realize that when people mean "we", they don't necessarily mean "we" as "we that share one single thing" but they can speak to "we that share multiple things"? When Aron Ra speaks to his viewers, he speaks to his viewers with "we" and "our", those viewers that share what he says, that wouldn't includes his detractors.
I imagine that his true from both Aron Ra, Sargon and numerous youtube personalities.

You have to look at it in the context of him being an activist for atheism. A public figure. When he speaks, he doesn't speak purely for his YT subscribers. One of the videos I mentioned isn't even specifically made for YT, it's a public speech about atheists in general, later put up on YT. It's not just him in his house making a YT video and not even remotely the same as me making a forum post asking a question to maybe less than 10 people. I'm not an activist for anything, I'm not a public figure. I'm just random guy with some ideas on the Internet like millions more.

Atheism and theism can be purely personal... What does that mean? Does it mean that you can have a certain belief but that you do not feel that you sshould strongly act upon it and only affect your personal choices rather than the choices of others? Then why don't liberalism or conservatism apply?

Again, political ideologies are meant to govern entire nations. Millions of people and how they interact. By definition they cannot be personal like religious practice or atheism.

How does it make sense to say "I believe income taxes should be exactly 10% flat tax but I'm only going to apply that principle for myself". Doesn't work. Like it literally cannot work, it's a nonsense statement. If you pay less than what the law says you go to prison. If you pay more, I doubt they will let you. They're not allowed to take over what the law says. Best you can do is give to charity if you're feeling so generous, but charity isn't taxation.

Even if you happen to live in a country where the tax code coincides exactly with your beliefs about taxes even though somehow you didn't vote for the party that implemented it, it's still not a choice. You still have to follow it regardless if you agree with it or not.

You're "at the very least you'd need to go out and vote" does not even apply in a lot of countries, to even the U.S. if you want to get particular. How many people say they're are liberal or conservative yet do not cast a vote come election day? Are you saying they're not truly liberal or truly conservative?

More like not truly effectively. Actually not effective at all. It's not possible to have a liberal or conservative system that is precisely as you want it to be (which means you have to pick a liberal or conservative party or movement and accept some flaws), but it is possible to practice religion precisely as you want it to. You can even make your own religion as the sole member, at least as long as you're not breaking the law. Same with atheism, you don't need to associate with any other atheists or compromise on anything about that.


Btw, TheAmazingAtheist was mentioned as well, but it should be noted he recently changed his brand to just TJ Kirk to get away from the atheist label and hasn't really talked that much about atheism. His audience isn't purely atheists and his channel is mostly about entertaining commentary about random things now. I really doubt he was serious about supporting Trump. In truth, he hated both candidates.

 

[Sparhafoc]

At these events you can avoid certain speakers if you find them objectionable to such an extent. MM also had an anti-Sargon speaker and they debated.

Do you refuse to sub to Netflix/TV as well because you don't watch 90%+ of what's on them? Not the best analogy but it's close, I mean Vidcon had both Sargon and Anita Sarkeesian. People who didn't like Sarkeesian didn't need to be in the room she spoke. So just don't be in the same room with Sargon then.

That's a cop-out. Just don't look. So, if an event invited a racist cunt as a speaker, well, I still give them my money but I show my objection by just going outside for a bit? Maybe buy some lunch?

How about I show my objection by writing to them and complaining about the stupidity of inviting such a person in the first place, and refusing to pay good money to support such a person?

That's good old voting with one's dollar, and if it takes market forces to oblige an exhibition event to not pick morons, then the event's probably not worth going to in the first place.

Inviting a racist cunt to talk would be telling everyone that all other ethnic groups are secondary, and the event's for white people. Inviting Sargon of fucking Akkad to an event does the same thing to women.

I don't have TV, but if I were paying for it and the network supported a racist/sexist, abusive little shitstain, I would certainly refuse to give them my money. Comedy's worth paying for, but bigotry you can find anywhere for free.

A+ was a really dangerous idea and that's why it reflects so badly on those who supported it.

Absolute rubbish. It wasn't a really dangerous idea at all - it was just a stupid idea.

On one hand they wanted to be the voice of atheists, but they also wanted every atheist to agree with their narrow points of view. They later took a step back but that doesn't mean you should automatically trust what they say, especially when they continued to act like cult members on their forum and ban people or call them jerks and bigots from the slightest disagreement.

For clarity, I don't trust what people say at the best of times, so I am not sure as I need the warning when it comes to a bunch of eejits acting out their emotional drama on the internet.

But seriously? They were about as dangerous as a cloth bag full of cotton wool.

There's a transparent fiction continuously created by anti-SJW/alt-right types which somehow simultaneously portrays SJW as wilting wallflowers and, at the same time, an immediate threat to all we hold dear - the end of the shining city on the hill! It's pathetic enough on YT, but here reasoned discourse will roundly reject it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It seems like you are saying that gatherings are the domain of the religious. If you are saying that, I disagree. We are a social species and coming together to stroke egos seems to be apart of the human experience.

I was saying that certain forms of gathering are the domain of the religious, or at least have historically been so. It's ironic to fight against something, to set oneself up as being a counter to something, and then emulating that thing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Let's not conflate, even in passing, Aron Ra with Sargon of fucking Akkad.

Aron Ra spends his time educating people on scientific topics.

Sargon of Akkad spends his time hating loudly on groups of people he's angsty about.

 

[Tree]

Yes, AronRa has educational videos on science, he also has some alarmist views about the impending takeover of the US government by Christian dominionists, still waiting...

About Sargon, even if I agreed with what you say, I'd rather he get up on stage to be debunked and humiliated. If you deplatform him you only make him bigger.

I also take accusations of racism or sexism serious enough to demand proof. Where's your proof that he hates women or that he unfairly discriminates against them? That is what actual sexism is. You might have a point if it was even remotely true. I don't agree with deplatforming people just because they have a different view, but I can agree on deplatforming people on moral grounds (i.e. it's not their views, it's that they're a really bad person)

 

[Visaki]

To be fair, secularism isn't always as straight forward. Take the issue of abortion. There are secular arguments for and against it, it's not as simple as secular = pro-choice all the way up to 9 months no questions asked. Yes some think only a religious person would ever be against abortion or some forms of abortions.

Indeed (though I quite literally haven't heard of anyone that would be pro-abortion with no limits whatsoever). If we want some kind of movement, and I'm not saying we nesessarily should, it has to be centered on principlas that everyone can agree on, like secularism, and it should bypass the singular questions. That's what the civil right movement did right.

I definitely agree atheists shouldn't be vilified for being atheists, but I'd say the same for Christians. I don't like how Madalyn O'Hair disowned her Christian son for being Christian, I find that just as reprehensible, especially given her position as someone who wanted to make being an atheist more acceptable in the wider society. Breaking up your family over such a trivial dispute is stupid.

It's all a matter of practicality. I might think, and to some extent do, that Christians (and other theists) in general are worse people than I am (in this matter anyway) but treating them like that not only now but also if they ever are the minority isn't productive.

I hope no atheists will go the SJW route of saying you can't be unfair to Christians cause "Christians have privilege", that's just so wrong (and so illogical while we're at it). But I wouldn't be surprised, this is what SJWs do, claim to be for equality but just drive a wedge between minorities and majorities by getting the minority to act like assholes. They already did the same with blacks and women and they'll say shit like "you can't be racist against whites cause whites have privilege so take it you cracker" blah blah

Christians, or other theists, do have privilege in many countries but again just shouting about it the SWJ way isn't productive. "Check your privilege" isn't an argument. Redefining what words mean to suit your agenda isn't a honest tactic. I don't want to drive Christians to the fringes but make them understand what our (see? one can't really talk about these things without using "us" and "we" at least a bit) position is and why it would be for the benefit of all of society to implement it.

 

[Nesslig20]

I'm talking about this amalgamation of professional atheist speakers that go to conferences and stuff, maybe have regular podcasts just to tell everyone for the 597564532523th time there's no God... people like AronRa or Dillahunty or Thunderf00t (pre-2012 or 2013 anyway) Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Assuming your misrepresentation isn't a misrepresentation than sure it would be a shit show. However, it isn't true that all they do is "telling everyone there is no God" every time. I may not have ever been to an "atheist" conference before, but I have watched many recorded talks on youtube of different people, each of them had something unique to talk about, most of them didn't conclude that "there was no God". Most is actually about promoting skepticism over blind faith, humanism, separation of church and state and also why atheists are just people too like you and that the christians nor any other religious group have a moral high ground over any unbeliever.

Here are 3 main things that bother me about it:
1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

Again, that's not all that they do. And also, that is true for every conference held by any demographic. A republican conference would have people promoting thing that not all republicans would agree to. Same for a christian conference promoting creationism or anit-gay marriage. Not every christian is against those. This is a true, but moot point.

2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

I would happily agree that atheist does not equal rational or logical. I view atheism as a position that is ideally reached by reason and logic, but of course not every atheist is an atheist due to logical reasons. Nor is every atheist reasonable in general. I have seen atheists ON atheist conferences object to other atheists for their hypocrisy, promoting themselves as champions of reason against religion while believing in crackpot things as well.

Here is an example, at the very start AronRa makes the same point that I did here.

3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

I agree that this conference was a shit show, but because of (one reason) Sargon's deplorable behavior. Many outspoken atheists didn't want to go to that conference since it showed signs it would be a shit show from the start.

Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone,

No, we won't have to give an atheist the chance to rant about a 9/11 conspiracy. Do we have to give someone a chance to give a talk promoting homeopathy on stage? Of course, conspiracy theorists and woo-masters are welcome to attend and they could talk to others or asking questions during a QandA, but there is a subtle nuance there with what you mean by "accepting everyone".

not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between.

Again, we can respect the people, but we don't have to respect their beliefs nor give their beliefs a platform.

You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH.

Who says that?

Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.

Again, no reason to give any stooge a change to give a talk on a plat form.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Another reason to despise A+, they were really trying to attach a far left ideology to being atheist.

Humanist values are far left? The main reason I thought Atheism+ was stupid and pointless was because it was just trying to relabel Humanism.

So much for convincing the religious to have more nuanced perspectives on atheists.

Why would we limit that to just the religious, when you are now demonstrating that atheists cannot as well.

It seems like you are saying that gatherings are the domain of the religious. If you are saying that, I disagree. We are a social species and coming together to stroke egos seems to be apart of the human experience.

I was saying that certain forms of gathering are the domain of the religious, or at least have historically been so. It's ironic to fight against something, to set oneself up as being a counter to something, and then emulating that thing.

It maybe ironic, but some people get something out of things like Sunday Assembly. Again, I see no harm in doing things like this. It is not for me, but to each there own.

 

[Sparhafoc]

About Sargon, even if I agreed with what you say, I'd rather he get up on stage to be debunked and humiliated. If you deplatform him you only make him bigger.

No, you make him slink back off to float on the scum he's surrounded himself with.

Anyway, I am not talking about deplatforming him - I am talking about never giving such a vicious little cretin so much as a sniff of a platform in the first place. He's shown what kind of an asshat he is, and he assuredly wouldn't be welcome at any event I was involved in organizing.

I also take accusations of racism or sexism serious enough to demand proof.

Demand proof?

Good luck with that - maybe try 'evidence'.

And while you're trying out that more applicable word, perhaps you could also demand that I show evidence for my own claims, not for your capitulation of my claims.

For example, before I am prepared to cite evidence for my position, you're going to need to show where I claimed...

Where's your proof that he hates women or that he unfairly discriminates against them?

Where did I say that? I wouldn't know if he hates women or whether it's just a schtick he uses to score hits from angsty hate-filled asshats on YT. Similarly, I very much doubt he's in any kind of position to discriminate against women.

As such, I am obviously under no fucking obligation whatsoever to provide evidence for something I didn't say.

And of course, let us remember how this works. Evidence is used to convince someone of something. I am actually not in the slightest bit interested in convincing you of my opinion of Sargon of fucking Akkad - I don't really care if you agree with me or not, and it's actually irrelevant to the point in hand.

That is what actual sexism is.

With all respect to your good self, I do not know you from Adam and won't be taking definitional arbitration from you as gospel. If I call a person a mug, it's me who gets to define 'mug' not you. Of course, you're under no obligation to accept my definition, but I can assure you, I am perfectly competent at achieving definitional clarity without help.

You might have a point if it was even remotely true. I don't agree with deplatforming people just because they have a different view, but I can agree on deplatforming people on moral grounds (i.e. it's not their views, it's that they're a really bad person)

My actual point was regarding whether an event is meant to include various subsets of people. If so, then inviting a speaker who belittles and demeans one or more of those subsets seems to be a rather self-defeating thing to do.

With Sargon of fucking Akkad, he has, time and time again, shown himself to be a misogynistic little shitstain who doesn't possess the legitimacy to have any platform other than social media.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It maybe ironic, but some people get something out of things like Sunday Assembly. Again, I see no harm in doing things like this. It is not for me, but to each there own.

Oh sure - don't get me wrong - in fact, you've probably seen me say a number of times even to the few numpty religious folks here that I think they have every right to believe whatever they want to believe, and practice those beliefs.

My point is more about the irony of a movement rejecting something it then emulates.

 

[Akamia]

With Sargon of fucking Akkad, he has, time and time again, shown himself to be a misogynistic little shitstain who doesn't possess the legitimacy to have any platform other than social media.

I think this may actually be what Tree meant. He doesn't believe Sargon to be a misogynist. For that matter, neither do I. I don't know how Tree would have missed it, but in my case, I plain don't watch enough of his videos anymore to really know what his current positions are. All I know is that he spent a lot of time defending Donald Trump during the election campaigns against those he believed were misrepresenting him. At the same time, he claimed to not even like Trump and was sick of defending him. Where he said that, I forget; it's been a while, and I don't care to watch his videos again for the sake of proving a point.

But I would like to know where this idea that Sargon is a misogynist came from. I didn't see that in any of the videos I watched of his in the last year. I don't like Sargon, but I've never actually seen a misogynistic attitude out of him either.

 

[Sparhafoc]

With Sargon of fucking Akkad, he has, time and time again, shown himself to be a misogynistic little shitstain who doesn't possess the legitimacy to have any platform other than social media.

I think this may actually be what Tree meant. He doesn't believe Sargon to be a misogynist. For that matter, neither do I. I don't know how Tree would have missed it, but in my case, I plain don't watch enough of his videos anymore to really know what his current positions are. All I know is that he spent a lot of time defending Donald Trump during the election campaigns against those he believed were misrepresenting him. At the same time, he claimed to not even like Trump and was sick of defending him. Where he said that, I forget; it's been a while, and I don't care to watch his videos again for the sake of proving a point.

But I would like to know where this idea that Sargon is a misogynist came from. I didn't see that in any of the videos I watched of his in the last year. I don't like Sargon, but I've never actually seen a misogynistic attitude out of him either.

Well, as much as I am assuredly not going to trawl back through his videos to find this shit, it's still remarkably easy to find simply by typing his name into Google.

I think there were gold-digging whores who would accept fucking Harvey Weinstein for cash and then we're hearing from the few that either didn't or did and regret it

Given that you've suggested you've watching a lot of his videos, I am surprised you've missed the misogynistic schtick. Then again, perhaps he's dropped it in favour of some alt-right bollocks. I was never a listener, but when his vids popped up on my feed years ago, that's when I listened to him ranting his bigotry against women, and that's simultaneously when I stopped listening to him and started considering him a vile cunt.

 

[Akamia]

I think it's up for debate as to whether that comment is actually misogynistic or just plain mean-spirited. I already knew Sargon is an ass, that's one of the reasons I stopped watching him a long time ago aside the rare case someone I know links one of his videos to me on Discord.

 

[Tree]

I think it's up for debate as to whether that comment is actually misogynistic or just plain mean-spirited. I already knew Sargon is an ass, that's one of the reasons I stopped watching him a long time ago aside the rare case someone I know links one of his videos to me on Discord.

There's a case to be made that maybe Sargon is an ass, I don't really care about that. I like a lot of his commentary on the regressive left. If he's mean in real life, that's his problem and the problem of those around him, it's not like I have to be friends with him to watch his content.

The misogyny accusation doesn't have merit unless one believes that being an ass to a woman = being an ass to all women, which is just silly. One can just as easily argue he hates men because he said "Fuck you Bernie" and Bernie's a man. His critics have to amplify his moral failings because they know being mean is trivial and most people won't care enough to "deplaform him". But if Sargon actually hated women for being women that would be a huge problem.

I'm still waiting for Sparhafoc to prove Sargon's sexist. Whether you like his temperament or not is a matter of opinion. Sexism is not. He either is or isn't.

I'd like to know how he is sexist if he:

1. doesn't hate women
2. doesn't discriminate against women

I'm not so much interested in defending Sargon so much as I'm interested in not seeing these accusations flown around so loosely.

 

[Tree]

Again, that's not all that they do.

I didn't say that's all they do.

And also, that is true for every conference held by any demographic. A republican conference would have people promoting thing that not all republicans would agree to. Same for a christian conference promoting creationism or anit-gay marriage. Not every christian is against those. This is a true, but moot point.

As I said before, unfortunately politics is a bit different from religion or religious matters because you don't have the option of being hyper-individualistic about it. Especially in the context of a 2 or 3 or 4 party system. You can't get away without compromise in politics. So if you want say a conservative government, you'll probably have to accept the flaws that conservatives have, the system can never be exactly as you want it to be because well, there are other millions of people in the country and you're not the dictator.

I agree that this conference was a shit show, but because of (one reason) Sargon's deplorable behavior. Many outspoken atheists didn't want to go to that conference since it showed signs it would be a shit show from the start.

I watched his debate with that other guy Tom whatever his name is. I didn't see anything "deplorable" and as for his other stuff, what he does outside the conference is his business, it's pretty trivial and doesn't justify this campaign to get him deplatformed. The idea that conference organizers should now police Twitter comments between two individuals is silly. What's next? Boycotting speakers who cuss in traffic? They don't have time to involve themselves in personal drama and it's best to leave that baggage at the door.

Notice that Sargon didn't care to discuss that anyway, he only did it when Tom insisted on it.

No, we won't have to give an atheist the chance to rant about a 9/11 conspiracy. Do we have to give someone a chance to give a talk promoting homeopathy on stage? Of course, conspiracy theorists and woo-masters are welcome to attend and they could talk to others or asking questions during a QandA, but there is a subtle nuance there with what you mean by "accepting everyone".

To be fair then I guess that depends on what your goals are.

You can avoid those kinds of people, but then you should also advertise accordingly. It's only fair.

Let's take a look at one key point of the Reason Rally for example:

"To dispel stereotypes ("there is no one 'True Atheist' "). Participation by non-theists of all political persuasions, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds was encouraged. The intent was to show that there are secular Americans in every major demographic."

I see nothing in that to exclude 9/11 truthers and if your major issue is atheists not having freedom from religion enough, well that affects the 9/11 truther variety of atheists too, they also have to follow laws that may be purely motivated by religion.

Promoting homeopathy, that blurs the line between speech and action that is immoral (giving blatantly false medical advice). I'd try this approach instead, invite them as long as they leave that baggage at the door or have someone to debunk them, shouldn't be hard.

Then there's political persuasion, I can understand not wanting to invite someone who wants to kill 6 million more Jews or whatever, that's a crime not just a difference of opinion and well outside universal standards of decency, but almost everything else should be welcomed. A guy like Sargon falls well within mainstream politics yet some seem to think these events should only be liberal echo chambers. I think that's misguided. If you want to prove there's no "one true atheist", then as I said, you need everyone: liberals, conservatives, nationalists, apolitical, centrists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, far left "progressives" (though maybe keep an eye on them so they don't dominate the discussion)

I don't think the last Reason Rally reflected that well at all. It was mostly leftists including far leftists. So much for dispelling atheist stereotypes to Christians.

 

[Collecemall]

Yes, AronRa has educational videos on science, he also has some alarmist views about the impending takeover of the US government by Christian dominionists, still waiting...

What do you mean still waiting? You've got one as our VP, a President who panders to their every desire, and a legislative branch controlled by them. This isn't some wild alarmist view. It's a fact that's already happened.

 

[Tree]

Yes, AronRa has educational videos on science, he also has some alarmist views about the impending takeover of the US government by Christian dominionists, still waiting...

What do you mean still waiting? You've got one as our VP, a President who panders to their every desire, and a legislative branch controlled by them. This isn't some wild alarmist view. It's a fact that's already happened.

AronRa predicted things like Levitical law being a thing, abolition of free speech not being able to criticize Christianity, basically a theocracy like the Taliban.

That didn't happen. And it can't happen, not on a federal level anyway, because Republicans tend to give more power to the states to make their decisions.

He predicted that if Republicans appointed a Supreme Court judge, which they did, all hell would break loose. Didn't.

He predicted a ban on contraception - that didn't happen. The most that can happen is a ban on government funded contraception. I don't know why anyone is entitled to that for free.

He predicted a gutting of welfare which will "eliminate the middle class". No, being a deadbeat generally eliminates you from the middle class. Not going into the pros and cons of welfare, but this isn't even a religious issue anyway. And welfare shouldn't be viewed as a human right, it's a privilege. Not saying it cannot exist, but it's up to the people through vote if they want to have these programs or not.

He thinks Republicans want to eliminate public education to make people stupid. I'm still not sure how this proves they're dominionists or even religiously motivated. This is true for many but they tend to favor school vouchers which means kids still have to go to school AND now have a better choice of schools.