One Good Thing About the Atheist Rift

[rug]

Bryce Canyon National Park at sunrise (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

September 16, 2015
Posted by Jack Vance at 5:47 AM

Maybe I'm just having an uncharacteristic moment of optimism where I am trying to look on the bright side of an unpleasant situation that does not have anything to do with our fascination with conflict, but I think there there is at least one small upside to the atheist rift. It has helped me to confront at least one difficult truth: just because someone identifies as an atheist, a skeptic, a humanist, and/or a freethinker does not mean he or she is rational, fair-minded, kind, or has any other admirable qualities.

Of course I knew this before I'd ever seen any real conflict among atheists. But knowing it in an abstract sense is different from having had enough direct experience with it to finally internalize it. In some ways, it is a lesson I needed. It helps keep me humble, and it helps me recognize that atheism cannot solve all - or even most - of the problems that need solving.

It is not that I ever believed that being an atheist, skeptic, humanist, and/or freethinker somehow made people more rational or anything else positive. Being an atheist may indicate that someone is correct on the question of gods, but knowing someone reached the right answer says little about how he or she got there. And while skepticism and freethought are certainly good things, it is quite easy to be selective about how and where one applies them. Someone could be a skeptic in some spheres and not others; someone could utilize freethought in some areas and not in others. And humanism, with all its different meanings, is challenging to pin down. Many people who claim to be humanists can be seen to treat people quite poorly, including their allies, and to violate much of what we might call the charitable "spirit" of humanism.

But while I never believed this in a conscious sense, I think it is fair to say that I fell victim to some subtle (and some perhaps not so subtle) biases. I had unrealistically high expectations of those who identified themselves as atheists, skeptics, humanists, and/or freethinkers. I expected them to be more rational, fair-minded, deliberate, intentional, kind, and just than was realistic. I expected groups of atheists, skeptics, humanists, and/or freethinkers to function better than groups of religious believers. In short, my expectations were unrealistic and set me up to feel surprised and disappointed by what should have been some predictable shortcomings.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2015/09/one-good-thing-about-atheist-rift.html#ixzz3m8i31Sk9

[immoderate]

1. "does not mean he or she is rational, fair-minded, kind, or has any other admirable qualities."

Right, atheists are not magic...

--imm

[Fumesucker]

2. How many people do you know who have *no* admirable qualities?

I can't think of anyone I know personally that I would consider bereft of every single admirable quality.

On the other hand I can't think of anyone who doesn't have character flaws either.

[rug]

5. I saw 16 Wednesday night.

[Cartoonist]

6. Good jab

can't argue

[Fumesucker]

10. I didn't realize you move in those circles

That explains much.

[rug]

11. Yes, watching the republican primary on CNN must make me a crypto-republican,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027177074

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Here's "the atheist rift" Jack Vance is blogging on, again:

Vance is gazing at his own navel. I couldn't work out what "the" atheist rift was from that post. So I followed his link to his blog post from 2 years ago, and found it was what he called, with no apparent sense of sarcasm, "the great rift". And his "great rift" turned out to be one group of atheist bloggers saying another group are sexist, and that group calling the first 'politically correct' and so on. 2 years later, Vance is still blogging about it, although I don't see what it has to do with him - he didn't appear to be in either group, and neither was talking about him (then again, no-one talks about him).

But Vance seemed to think he needed another blog post, so he wheeled out a few links to posts he'd done before. I think the only revolution involved in his 'Atheist Revolution' is him spinning on his own axis. He doesn't seem to go anywhere.

[rug]

7. You can start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212156

and here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212446

And that's just in a matter of days.

Like it or not, with growth comes coalescence, followed by fissures. If you don't see it you're being naïve. As Vance states he was. Denying reality is a species of magick.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. No, that isn't Vance's rift

but I think there there is at least one small upside to the atheist rift

Follow that link of his, and you get to:

July 11, 2013
Why I Am Sometimes Viewed as Neutral on 'The Great Rift'

...
I reject the perspective that this rift represents an open conflict between two well-defined sides (i.e., the Freethought Blogs/Skepchick/Atheism+ side vs. the Slymepit side).

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/07/why-i-am-sometimes-viewed-as-neutral-on.html

This is nothing to do with Werleman or Harris. It's about feminists and MRAs. Or was, 2 years ago. Vance felt the need to blog on it again (always referring to "the" rift, not "a" rift, "some" rifts, or just "rifts", and just concludes, though rather verbosely, "humanists are human".

[rug]

9. You shold read him regularly. The "rift" is far more than that link.

"It has nothing to do with . . . . " My, that sounds familiar.

It's much more than MRAs and elevatorgate. Read his posts on what he calls "social warriors".

You can try to minimize the phenomenon all you want, muriel, but the fact remains that many self-identified atheists are repudiating bigots like Harrris, rightfully so, and the asshole contingent on the internet while other self-identified atheists are stalwartly defending them.

Feel free to choose which sgroup you support.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Those termed 'social warriors' are those opposed to the MRAs

If you think Vance's rift includes Harris, then link to posts by Vance that say so, rather than one that says it is about the Slymepit and Freethought Blogs.

You're reading your own feelings into the post you linked to.

[onager]

18. Social JUSTICE Warriors

Or SJWs. Not "social warriors." It says a lot that the OP can't even get the basic phraseology right of this "great rift." Which leads me to suspect he doesn't know nearly as much about it as he is pretending to.

And Muriel, thanks for your brief two-para summary above. It's exactly right.

SJWs are not to be confused with social justice activists or social justice workers. Those are people doing valuable work in eliminating society's problems.

SJWs don't do that - they mostly just stir up shit on the Internet, usually by conflating and confusing information. For example, when they see an article about "great rifts" or Atheists Behaving Badly, they just blindly copy-pasta it to catapult the propaganda. Without bothering to check the agenda behind it or sometimes even where it came from. Hilarity often ensues, when the article originated on a far-right or Fundie site.

By the way, those "MRAs?" (Men's Rights Activists?" People tagged with that label include many women, including some who identify as lifelong feminists and social justice activists. But those who don't toe a particular ideological line often get lumped in with the real assholes.

And has anybody checked in lately with one of the self-appointed bastions of SJWs, Freethought Blogs? The co-founder of the whole operation, Ed Brayton, dumped FTB and went to Patheos. Aron Ra and his wife Lilandra did the same. Ophelia Benson left after a huge fight over her alleged disrespect of transgender people, including accusations of her being a TERF (that's a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, for those not keeping up with the acronyms).

That seems like a much juicier "rift" story than hair-splitting over old Sam Harris quotes. But the Guardians of the Atheist Universe in this group somehow seem to have missed it. Funny, that.

And at the end of the day, no matter what Sam Harris says or Richard Dawkins tweets, I will still be an atheist, along with millions of other people. After all, we don't have a Pope who can excommunicate us or a Supreme Islamic Council to enforce orthodoxy and tell us we are the Wrong Kind of Atheist. Well, they can try. But they'll probably just get laughed at.

[rug]

20. So, are you in the "social jstice warrior camp" or not?

[rug]

19. Actually, that's not what he's referring to at all.

You haven't been paying attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218179677

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. As onager said, you're not familiar with the term yourself; or the threads you started on it

and have now quoted.

" Many atheists have been affected by social justice warriors at least since the emergence of Atheism+."
Atheism+ , as Vance explained in that link, but you appear to not have bothered reading, was started by Jen McCreight, and he criticises it with:

"When Jen wrote her post introducing Atheism+, I doubt that she imagined it becoming a small, ineffective, and much maligned community that concerned itself primarily with attacking atheists whose brand of feminism was deemed insufficient instead of anything resembling social justice work."

See? He thinks the 'rift' is about feminism, and whether the people associated with Atheism+ (which includes many on Freethought Blogs) were improperly trying to shut down conversation. He continues, in the quote you put in your OP but may not have read yourself:

"More recently, we have seen it in #GamerGate, #ShirtStorm, #manspreading, and even in the aftermath of Ferguson."

So, that's 3 situations about feminism versus MRAs, and one about race (though I will say I haven't a clue how Ferguson fitted in). Nothing about Werleman or Harris. Not about "the dangerous rise of secular extremists" that Werleman witters on about, or about profiling "possible Muslims" that Harris is advocating.

You haven't been paying attention to what you post, let alone what Vance calls "the great rift".

[rug]

22. Oh, I'm quite familiar with it. That link I gave you was posted eight months ago.

I understand why you'd like to pigeonhole it as feminism vs. MRAs but it is much, much wider than that. Do you think there is not a rift in atheist circles?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. You didn't read what you posted; it shows you're wrong (nt)

[rug]

24. I did. It doesn't. You didn't answer the question. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You didn't read my posts in this thread either before replying, I see

I quoted the bits that show you wrong.

You really ought to read posts on DU before you reply to them. It would help you carry on a conversation.

[rug]

26. You know, muriel, maybe you should read them before pressing "enter".

They do not "show you wrong".

I suppose it's simply easier to say someone did not read your posts than to contemplate that it is you who are wrong.

In any event, it served its purpose, further delay in answering the question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. I've quoted several sections that show you wrong; you've quoted nothing

and you haven't shown you've read what I quoted, let alone tried to make a reply to it. You have made no attempt to show how Werleman or Harris are relevant to Vance's "great rift".

You are not even trying to have a discussion. Once you have started a bona fide attempt at reading your own posts that you link to, and reading what people reply to, then you may be able to ask questions worth answering. Give it a try.

[rug]

28. Lol, "questions worth answering".

What are those, muriel? Questions without discomfort?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Are you going to read your own thread, or just try to derail it? (nt)

[rug]

30. Always. Minimizing it to MRAs vs feminism is the derailment.

Your derailment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I would suggest you start to read Jack Vance to find out his views, but ...

... it seems you aren't interested in reading anything anywhere to find something out. So you may as well continue to make up your own ideas about what other people think. It's served you well so far.

[rug]

33. Given all the strawmen I've seen posted here, inclding from you,

that would put me in good company.

On second thought, "crowded" company is more precise.

[Cartoonist]

4. Autobiography

just because someone identifies as an atheist, a skeptic, a humanist, and/or a freethinker does not mean he or she is rational, fair-minded, kind, or has any other admirable qualities.
---
I see now why rug likes to link to this guy. He's a self-loathing atheist. I bet even Huckabee likes this guy.

[edhopper]

12. The atheist rift

some say there is NO god, while others maintain there in no GOD.
Wars will ensue, I am sure.

[rug]

13. And others want Muslims profiled at airports.

Calling it reasonable.

[edhopper]

14. Does that have to do with atheism?

wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with religion or nonreligion. You know, all that cultural and economic stuff that is the real factors in these matters.

I believe that is the proper explanation, posted here many times.

[rug]

15. Does not Harris - and others - say that the Quranic beliefs drive Muslims terrorists?

You can't have it both ways, ed.

And yes, I do say that Middle Eastern terrorism has much more to do with politics and nationalism than it does with religion. Just as Harris' bigotry has more to do with his neo-liberal Western triumphalism than it does with atheism, despite his framing.

Take your pick of analyses, ed, just don't conflate them.

[edhopper]

16. You really think

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I am the one conflating? Really?

Hmmm?

Well you might be right. If the atheists' Pope doesn't intervene i see holy war between the factions of all those Harris followers and those that say otherwise. Holy terror i tell you!

[haikugal]

31. There's an Athiest rift? Really?

How does that work?