atheism+

I’ve noticed a trend in the #atheism tag as of late, and that’s a lot of people complaining about atheists. Not just theists who’ve been on the receiving end of some atheist’s almost certainly heavy-handed jibing, but atheists complaining about atheists too. Sound weird to you? It sure looked weird to me.

The complaints from theists are pretty much what you’d expect. If you’ve ever looked at any atheism discussion, you know what I’m talking about.

Now, where atheists draw down on each other is interesting. You’ve got people who don’t want to be associated with atheism because of its “reputation.” They’re still atheists even if they don’t consider themselves as such, so long as they don’t believe in any gods. It’s a word with a meaning, and it describes their beliefs.

You’ve got people who attack the atheism+ movement for various reasons. The most venomous of which are the likes of TheAmazingAtheist and Thunderf00t who are colossal douches who’ve spent loads of energy attacking feminism(probably in the same sort of knee-jerk reaction that spawns most MRAs).

I’ve also seen people slam them for deigning to cross their streams so to speak. People who support social justice movements, but don’t want it in their atheism. And of course, there are the atheists who attack those atheists for being insensitive at best, and sexist/homophobic/racist at worst.

I think the goal of atheism+ is to offer a friendly space for people who don’t look like Richard Dawkins, who don’t take kindly to sexism, racism, or other forms of bigotry. It’s not that they’re saying atheism leads to these progressive beliefs, but rather that they are atheists who also hold those beliefs, and that bigotry will only serve to drive people away. Typically atheists will claim to have reached their position via rational examination of the facts, the atheism+ people want to apply that to other areas of life, and I for one think that’s got some real value. Objective critical examination of ideas, any sort of idea, is how you get better ideas. If you think it’s worked for you with regards to god, then why wouldn’t it work for other parts of life?

I can’t believe I’ve had to write up a post about why it’s a good idea to have a socially progressive space in the atheist community, but there you have it. If you allow your community to alienate people by overwhelmingly emphasizing white men, you’re going to miss out on a lot of potential allies. I think the Republican party is a sterling example of that at work, and atheism can’t really afford to run on the Southern Strategy.

Re: “My OTP Needs Gay Rights” signs

They were probably confused and thought that was acceptable behaviour because the other side has done nothing but reference a fictional character.

Argh

I followed a link on an Atheist Experience video to some dickbag named “TheAmazingAtheist” (hint, if you have to tell people you’re amazing, you probably aren’t) and now he’s showing up in my youtube feed :T

He’s a misogynist ass who’s launched a one-man campaign against feminism on youtube. He is the apotheosis of “Men’s Rights”. Fucker’s probably got a hat-rack full of fedoras is what I’m saying.

Note: While he’s a turgid piece of shit, the Atheist Experience is unrelated to him and remains good. They actually make an effort to include women in the broadcast. The main host, Matt Dillahunty, goes out of his way to denounce and argue against these toxic elements in the Atheist community.

MINE ARE THE BIGGEST PARASITES: Comedian David Mitchell on Religion and Atheism

“What I don’t understand is why so many people, the religious and the irreligious alike, have swallowed the idea that atheism is the most rational conclusion to draw about humanity’s position and state of grace. Even those who oppose atheism do so in terms of its being too rational: lacking…

I love David Mitchell, but considering he can devote the better part of a rant to shaming people who say “hold down the fort”, you’d think he’d care about his use of the term “atheist.”

Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist...

pedazitos:

vaishino:

vaishino:

Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates…

vaishino:

Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates atheists sometimes.

pedazitos:

Saying a god—one that loves that which it has created—would never allow the…

I see the point you’re trying to make, that the sort of believer who’ll resort to that sort of circular logic is beyond reasoning with, but my point is that this is a really shitty way to absolve a god of blame for the crappy world they’ve apparantly put forth.

And yes, this would be a particularly crappy attempt for an all-powerful all-knowing perfectly morally good being. I mean, we eat and breathe through the same tube. Imagine how many lives would be saved the meaningless death from choking on food if we had separate tubes? For natural processes this is pretty bang up, but for someone who’s supposedly perfect? There are a lot of flaws that just seem ameteurish.

Essentially, giving a god a bunch of qualities that let you bypass criticism and objections by pointing to said qualities? Is an incredibly lazy defence, and circular. “God is perfect. How do I know? Well look at the world! Oh all that suffering? That’s by design. How do I know? Because God is perfect!”

I think you almost get my point. I don’t think their logic is circular at all; I think it’s just their argument. Before I go on, I really want you to think in the realm of all religious people and not just the Abrahamic religions (specifically, Christianity, which most atheists have a ridiculous obsession with, and which I think you alluded to when you capitalized “god” in your last quote). 

They’re not absolving anything. The premise is that the god in question knows absolutely what they are doing/what they have done/what they will continue doing. You keep pointing out “flaws” of the perfect deity—why would he have us swallow food and drink down the same tube?

My response to that is and has been: how do you know that this is a flaw? Asshole Atheists a lot of the time point out many things that could be fixed about humanity by a just god, and all of these things are “fixable” only under the premise that they are flawed in the first place.

Furthermore, they are considered flawed because they do not benefit or sometimes obstruct the benefit of humanity. You argue, “a just god would have created two tubes so that nobody would choke.” The religious argue not, “All the bad things that happened are justified because my god is perfect.”; the religious argument IS, “Why would a just god want nobody to choke? You are not a just god, so you could not possibly know. But my actual just god has already told me that sometimes I will suffer and that I must have faith despite that.”

Yes, from the perspective of a human, it would be great if nobody choked. But how do you know the good of humanity is rooted in everyone never choking?

In everyone never suffering in general?

Well, there’s no way in hell that you, as a human, could ever know that. An omnipotent, omniscient, just god would absolutely know, however.

As I end this post I want to also address your appointing of pronouns to deities. I feel as an atheist it is easier for me to distinguish why people can feel so strongly about ultimate beings by refraining from giving them human pronounds. Deities are not humans, and I feel subtle nuances like this makes it difficult for atheists to realize this. (Yes, some religious use pronouns, but the ones that do have a way of distinguishing that this pronoun is used specifically when referring to a deity, such as capitalization or ommission of a letter)

(Did I accidentally slip pronouns in somewhere? I specifically try to avoid them when discussing deities who don’t have clearly defined gender. Whoops.)

I do get it though. Admittedly I was being glib. You’re saying that to those believers, what we percieve as flaws are actually intentional and necessary. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. I just refuse to see that as anything but post hoc rationalization of what the vast vast majority of people recognize as a legitimate problem.

You’re right, I did let my personal biases slip in there when I capitalized “god” but that’s because it’s what I was raised around. I mean, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes about Islam, it’s because it’s what she’s experienced. That’s not to say that we don’t also study and discuss other beliefs, but, well, personal biases creep in.

I also don’t think it makes one an asshole to give deferrance to an argument that some of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced have pondered. I know the atheist community has a lot of assholes, and a lot of them are particularly vocal, I just think making thisparticular argument isn’t criteria for that when there are people who are legitimately doing dickish things.

Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist...

vaishino:

Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates…

vaishino:

Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates atheists sometimes.

pedazitos:

Saying a god—one that loves that which it has created—would never allow the…

I see the point you’re trying to make, that the sort of believer who’ll resort to that sort of circular logic is beyond reasoning with, but my point is that this is a really shitty way to absolve a god of blame for the crappy world they’ve apparantly put forth.

And yes, this would be a particularly crappy attempt for an all-powerful all-knowing perfectly morally good being. I mean, we eat and breathe through the same tube. Imagine how many lives would be saved the meaningless death from choking on food if we had separate tubes? For natural processes this is pretty bang up, but for someone who’s supposedly perfect? There are a lot of flaws that just seem ameteurish.

Essentially, giving a god a bunch of qualities that let you bypass criticism and objections by pointing to said qualities? Is an incredibly lazy defence, and circular. “God is perfect. How do I know? Well look at the world! Oh all that suffering? That’s by design. How do I know? Because God is perfect!”

Hide Your Kids: vaishino: Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates...

vaishino:

Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates atheists sometimes.

pedazitos:

Saying a god—one that loves that which it has created—would never allow the created to suffer, is like saying your parents should have spoiled you rotten when you were growing up.

I am…

Omnipotence is literally the power to do anything. That is my foundation for thinking an omnipotent being should be able to prevent suffering. Saying there’s no way for an omnipotent being to accomplish something without inflicting suffering on people diminishes its omnipotence. Either its omnipotence, omniscience, or morality is diminished by the presence of suffering.

You say it’s incorrect for me to give deities human values, but the vast majority of believers believe in a sort of personal god who has traits and values. I don’t think it’s terribly unfair of me to approach this as a person of finite qualities, especially when said deities are supposed to also be giving edicts for people to follow and intends to judge people for their beliefs.

The fact that the problem of evil is an issue that even religious believers struggle with shows that it’s not so easily dismissed. That most people, religious and non-religious, won’t just accept “It’s for your own good” like a battered wife.

Hide Your Kids: I am an atheist who really fucking hates atheists sometimes.

pedazitos:

Saying a god—one that loves that which it has created—would never allow the created to suffer, is like saying your parents should have spoiled you rotten when you were growing up.

I am not religious, but I implore those who mock faith to consider this:

You as a human being take up limited space,…

I’ve seen this argument before and I’ve never bought it. It seeks to compare the suffering found in the world with not being spoiled. At least, in the eyes of whichever god you’re choosing to stick in the driver’s seat. If your god views a child crying because “mommy didn’t get me candy” with things like the holocaust, the staggeringly high rate of rape in virtually every corner of the globe, or the fact that the natural state of virtually every creature on this planet is one of harship, stress, and a painful if not violent death, then I might say your god cannot be the source of morality, and in fact is a monster.

Saying “We don’t know that there isn’t a good reason for it all. We aren’t omniscient.” also isn’t terribly convincing. Yeah, we don’t know for certain that there isn’t a good reason, but that doesn’t make the point any less valid. That the suffering found can and does demonstrate to people that either god doesn’t care or doesn’t exist is enough. Some of these religious systems have eternal suffering as the punishment for failing to believe, so the absurd sffering people go through in life can’t be discounted. The question “why does you make it seem so unlikely that he exists?” is really poorly answered with “There’s probably a good reason, but fuck if I know it.” I mean, imagine if we applied that logic to other aspects of life? That guy stole my wallet, and now I can’t make rent. Well I’m sure he had his reasons, no need to call the cops. That guy shot me in the spine and now I can’t walk, but for all I know, he has a really good excuse, so let him go. The idea that gods cannot be judged for their actions or inaction is the very obvious first step toward keeping people from questioning religious leaders, and a holdover from when the right to rule was viewed as a divine mandate.

Call me jaded, but I think that an omnipotent being should have means besides suffering to achieve goals. There are loads of reasons to dislike what a lot of atheists do and argue, but not buying the “there’s probably a really good reason that we just don’t know.” line isn’t one of them.

This is hilarious. These guys hit every square on the awful creationist apologist bingo card. A quick run down:

• Our children are being indoctrinated by the schools.
• The schools don’t teach about god anymore!
• Hitler!
• Elitist minority is controlling America.
• Evolution hasn’t been proven.
• The fossil record is incomplete.
• Show me the transitional forms!
• The big bang hurts my tiny brain.
• Christian nation.
• Things were much better in the 40s and 50s.
• Christians are the most opressed religion in America.
• Separation of church and state doesn’t work like that.
• Children are learning about Islam in school!

I can’t even be mad at this shit anymore, it’s so stupid and untrue that it’s laughable. They’ve stopped being sad propoganda and started being unintentional comedy.

Agnosticism And You - What Do Words Mean Again?

Because every time I read the #atheism tag, I am seriously annoyed by the grievous misuse of the word agnostic. People seem to think it means some sort of middle ground in belief. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no middle ground in belief, it’s a binary position.

Read More