Religion
Related: About this forumWhy I won’t be going to Skeptic or Atheist meetings anymore
Posted by: Martin
17/06/2012
This will admittedly not hit the skeptical community terribly hard, because I have never been to TAM or Skepticon anyway, and I have certain reservations with regards to some of those compartment skeptics, who manage to be all rational and sciencey about dowsing or Bigfoot, but get jittery when religion comes up as an object of skepticism. Anyway, and I’m sure the atheist movement will roll on without me as well. But I just wanted to make a few points as to why I will not attend these meetings anymore, in the near future at least. This post is at least partially motivated by the recent blog posts by Rebecca Watson and Jen McCreight, and although my reasons differ significantly from theirs, and their beef is mainly with TAM and DJ Grothe, I am hoping that organisers read what we write, and that changes will be implemented to make our movements and conferences more accessible and safe.
It wasn’t that I finally realized that I had been wrong before in thinking that there are certain common values or attitudes that are shared by nonbelievers and skeptics, and that bullying, sexism, misogyny and irrationality are actually just as prevalent among atheists or skeptics as they are within the general population. I’m starting to think maybe even more so, but maybe that’s just my impression because we tend to talk about it more. In the end, atheists and skeptics are just people, and people can be assholes. Lacking belief in a deity is just not enough glue to form a cohesive social movement, or to get a large number of well-meaning and rational Facebook friends.
And it also wasn’t for the fact that I wrote a post pointing out Jim Jefferies’ misogyny and highly problematic “comedy” a month before the Global Atheist Convention here in Melbourne, and that he still was invited to perform there, to the shock of female attendees and presenters like Stella Young alike. And it wasn’t the missing response or apology from the GAC organisers to this debacle either, nor the lukewarm “Well, there was an email form you could have filled out to complain” by GAC presenter Kylie Sturgess that convinced me not to attend any of these meetings again (I would have thought conference organizers should try their best to avoid upsetting parts of their audience in the first place, and not just generously give them the option to complain via email after the damage is done).
And it wasn’t for the fact alone that prices for TAM, the GAC or other conferences are astronomically high, something that at least in the case of TAM and the GAC I fail to understand, since for one, we should be trying our utmost to make these events as affordable as possible for people to attend and listen to the often awesome speakers, and in the case of the GAC, I would have thought that with a government grant and twice the number of attendees, prices should have gone down significantly instead of up, compared to 2 years previously.
http://furiouspurpose.me/why-i-wont-be-going-to-skeptic-or-atheist-meetings-anymore/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
daaron
(763 posts)Never been to an atheist meet-up, myself. Mostly I just don't like groups of people. A few people are OK, but get more than say 5 of us in one place and we're useless as individuals. Oh, we make fine toadies and peons and soldiers and partiers and rioters in wads and bunches - we can really get things done when groups act. I just don't like us in groups, is all I'm saying. I don't like concerts or marches for the same reason - I just don't like that many people all in one place. Ugh. Like ants crawling on a Jolly Rancher.
I think it was wrong of the article's author to expect more from groups of atheists than groups of any other people. 1:1 is the best form of interpersonal communication. Where two or more gather? God, I hope I'm not one of 'em.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Atheists are often far, far worse bigots than the religious community, and anyone wanting links can have them by request. My DU experience made me skeptical of those who claim skepticism. The most despicable anti gay ignorance I have seen on the internet comes from folks who claim to be atheists skeptical of all things, all things except the bullshit they believe about gay people.
If there is no God, those who believe are still not as stupid as those who claim 'science' while repeating anti gay superstitions they learned from the right wing. The most horrid of ignorance is the willful sort, particularly when it is promulgated with gusto and wry comments.
On DU I learned about Darwin Central, which from what I saw was like Phelps Church without the songs.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)We atheists at DU are a grumpy bunch, but I don't think I've seen the anti gay posts you're referring to.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Care to back up your claims of atheist homophobia on du?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)to reply to this post. I'm sure they will be along any time now.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)It implies that, on some deep level, they actually believe this to be true.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)First, there are plenty of people challenging the poster. I think it is more likely true that some just choose not to engage here. The member has been asked to back up their claims. A jury chose not to hide the post.
Not responding is not a tacit endorsement at all, imo.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to respond to and fight against that kind of bigotry wherever it occurs. It seems those promises were nothing but empty, ass-covering rhetoric.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Yet when "this sort of thing" shows up, their silence is deafening. As for a failure to respond not being a tacit endorsement, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one completely. Hell, how often do we take our politicians to task for not speaking out, and for their silence serving to endorse a poor position?
Also, I was not commenting on the jury or its results (and frankly, given how the jury system and how it works, I wouldn't use it as a solid basis for determining the validity of any post to begin with).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In particular, no one is obligated to defend anyone who they may personally dislike or distrust because of past behavior.
To hold the theists here responsible for this particular post or inferring that they agree if they don't challenge it is ridiculous. You are all big people and perfectly capable of standing up for yourselves.
This group is full of personal attacks and juries rarely remove any of them, but I use the alert function no matter what side they are coming from. What I am not going to do is stand in defense of individuals that have treated me like shit.
Period.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Period.
Please explain how that statement of yours fits with your role as host in this group?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And the other post that replied to you. And the original post I replied to. We are talking about SPECIFIC PEOPLE who have stated they do a SPECIFIC THING, and yet when the situation presents itself for them to do so, they failed to appear. No where did I imply that all theists must rush to the defense of atheists whenever ignorance such as this is posted.
"What I am not going to do is stand in defense of individuals that have treated me like shit. "
I think this particular point of yours is deserving of some further explanation, least some very negative conclusions about the strength of your convictions be drawn.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is a post that is aimed at particular individuals who post here and aimed at what she perceives as their objectionable behavior.
Were this an attack on atheists in general, I would have a different position. That's bigotry.
In terms of my role as host, no where in that job description is there a requirement that the hosts defend individual members, particularly members who one may not like or trust. I continue to be committed to making this a place where both believers and non-believers can participate. That's my job as I see it. In general, I think we as a group achieve that goal, but, as has been stated over and over again, it's not a safe haven for either.
Lastly, there is no way in hell I am getting in the middle of a fight between members of our atheist community and the GLBT community (if such a fight exists other than in this thread).
The fact that this has been turned on the theists here is neither unexpected nor surprising.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)How is that NOT an attack on atheists in general? Or is it OK so long as they simply restrict the attack to atheists here on the DU?
"The fact that this has been turned on the theists here is neither unexpected nor surprising."
It should never be unexpected nor surprising for there to be an expectation of somebody being true to their word. And you'll note again that it is not all theists that are being addressed here, but rather specific theists who made a specific claim.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think she (for whatever reason) believes that there are some individuals here who are bigoted against GLBT people. I've not seen it, but I am not going to tell her she is a liar. Nor am I going to jump to the defense of those individuals because I don't even know who they are. I am familiar with BNW and respect her ideals and fervor, but I couldn't be less interested in getting into a tangle with her over something I have no knowledge of.
If, in fact, she is aiming this at all who identify as atheist here, that's a different case. But I don't read it like that at all.
Again, as to my *word*, I will again reiterate that I am under no obligation to defend individual members or clusters of members and never said that I would. As BNW has been challenged to provide evidence to back up what she is saying, I would offer the same challenge as to my *word*. This meme is just part of the crusade.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...honest. Just far too many generalizations are made for it to be anything else.
And you'll note I did not say anything specific about you or your word at any point here. While others say you have claimed to stand against such obvious ignorance and bigotry as this, I can't say if you have specifically. And "crusade?" Really? Is that level of hyperbole really necessary or adding anything at all to the discussion?
EDIT: I went ahead and sent the person in question a DU email requesting them to provide the links in reference to her statements about atheists here on DU being "some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance" and "far, far worse bigots than the religious community."
Tho again, I cannot see how these statements can be viewed as anything other than a broad brush attack on the atheist community here at the DU. But if she is willing to clarify, I'm willing to alter my assessment.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I may have some personal bias here and will back off, but I will say that I opted for *crusade* rather than *witch hunt* purposefully.
I am also willing to reassess if more information becomes available.
As usual, it has been a pleasure to engage with you. Though we often strongly disagree, I have never found you to be less than polite and civil. And I am most appreciative of that.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I also appreciate your civility, as I find our disagreements to be that much more engaging because of it!
dmallind
(10,437 posts)If "...on DU, atheists" does not refer to all atheists here, would you accept the use of "...on DU, Christians" followed by any kind of vile insult as not referring to all Christians here? If not, please detail the difference precisely.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)perhaps more than one, but clearly one.
One need take only a cursory look at some of the posts both here and in other groups to see similar statements about DU believers - broad brush attacks and vile insults. Sometimes these are directed against individuals and sometimes against DU believers and sometimes against believers in general.
Juries generally allow these statements to stay, though they sometimes get it right.
The argument is not whether I support the use of any of these when they are bigoted. The argument is whether I am obligated to publicly protest, which I am not. The other argument is whether not publicly protesting implies tacit support. It does not.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Did she reply somewhere to clarify her statements and I just missed it?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This post links to another post by the person up thread where she says very similar things about MineralMan in a Meta thread.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...then her post in THIS thread could have been worded a HELL of a lot better.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Been there, done that.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)They could have returned as was requested to both provide the links they themselves offered and to clarify their position. That sort of thing just irritates me to no end. But it was likely as you said, and emotional outburst.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I can understand the emotions getting the most of you. But then own up and admit that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In fact I can understand the poster thinking that way. It's the impression that several atheists give, here on DU. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to wear it.
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)Maybe you can provide some links since the other poster refuses. Let's see some of this homophobia promoted by atheists here.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I was responding to the following
"At least on DU, 'atheists' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance"
I don't think we need links to make that point.
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)couple of links for what you're talking about.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Secondly, what post am I agreeing with? I said and I repeat "In fact I can understand the poster thinking that way. It's the impression that several atheists give, here on DU." That was in response to eqfan592's post referring to "At least on DU, 'atheists' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance".
That description seems apt for some of the louder atheist voices on DU. I have no idea how many are homophobes, though I suspect that a few may be. Fortunately, most atheists I know IRL do not fit that description. I think that a handful of faith haters and flame baiters like to hog the stage here in Religion. Their purpose is not to debate or learn, but to mock and deride and lump all believers into the Falwell,Hagee, Ayatollah Khomeini bag. Yep, if you believe in anything, even the fucking Easter Bunny, then you are as evil as evil gets and are guilty of every crime ever committed in the name of religion. They represent themselves as typical atheists, or as "true" atheists. They are neither. Their intolerance is matched by their promulgation of ignorance. I will not provide links, nor name names, for they need no more attention than they already get, which interestingly appears to be declining daily.
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)That's a quite a strawman you created and I love how you say you "never mentioned homophobia" but are now throwing out unfounded accusations about homophobia.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Or send them to my inbox and I'll put up the links if you think it will get you in trouble. Specifically, I would like to see some posts that are representative of this:
And don't repeat the "I don't want to give them attention" BS. You are making some pretty bold claims and you need to support them. I would argue that you are building a whopper of a strawman collection there.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I am agreeing in part with another member about a handful of posters here who basically spend most of their time spewing venom at believers, or at anyone who doesn't share their animosity toward believers. I and others who dare to show tolerance toward people of faith become the subject of witch hunts and smear campaigns. You know it, I know it and anyone who reads the threads either here or in Meta or in A&A knows it too. I've witnessed the bullying of Rug, cbayer, tmo and others by the "purity" patrol of so-called atheists. Well, I feel the same way about them as I do about any fundies. You throw them out of your little group and then trash them. Very fucking classy, trashing people who can't defend themselves.
I have been accused of being a sock puppet, a homophobe, a survivalist and god knows what else by them, and you, yourself have joined in the attacks, suggesting that I was flailing and providing you some good entertainment over the homophobia/pedophilia strawman. If you want to be treated like adults, then behave like adults.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)But don't chide believers for the same behavior (including some pretty piss poor behavior from your pals rug, cbayer and TMO). You continually bash atheists for defending themselves, even when you don't have anywhere near the whole story. I'm sorry, but as an atheist I'm done tiptoeing around believers because they're offended by my existence. And I'm done tiptoeing around you.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll wait.
While I wait I'll read your link to "Uncle Tom atheists". I will be fascinated to learn how an intellectual position compares to human slavery.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It's called providing data to support your claim. Surely you've heard of Toulmin. You make these bold claims and then when asked to back them up say there aren't specific posts. Which means you have fuck all.
And anyone that wants to go to A/A and read the BSA thread can see that you repeatedly made comments which connected homosexuality and pedophilia. The "fox in charge of the hen house" would be the most obvious one.
And as to trashing people who can't defend themselves, I told you that when you told that story, you needed to make it clear that it was a host of the A/A group that told that person to edit the call out of the banned member. You said you weren't going to be telling that story. Looks like I was right and you were full of shit. You can make all the general, baseless claims you want, but don't be surprised when people that actually read and remember what you post call you on it.
rug
(82,333 posts)As one of the referenced DU members who can not speak in A/A, is there something you or one of the posters in this group you host wish to say here in a free and open forum? I'm all ears.
I have time to kill since I'm still waiting for your cohost to back up the bullshit he posted. It's rather ironic he fails to back up what he posted in a subthread complaing about someone else not backing up their claims.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)As to your banning from A/A, I wasn't a host at that time so for me to speak to it would be me speaking to it from ignorance which would not be appropriate.
I do know that my cohost whose "bullshit" you don't like did ask someone to edit out a reference to you in a post recently. Surely you read that one. Or have you stopped reading A/A?
rug
(82,333 posts)And, while you were not yet a host, you were a gleeful particpant in the callout thread. Unsurprisingly.
And I was referencing the bullshit of your other cohost who, though he has the ability to respond here, has yet to back up the bullshit he asserted upthread.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Please show me where any of my responses in the thread about cbayer were "gleeful." I posted maybe a handful of times on that thread and each time I referenced her it was to indicate what she did to get banned. I said nothing in there that I didn't say in the Meta thread she started. I would hardly call that a "gleeful participant."
Secondly, when have I ever called you out in A/A. The only time in my recent memory that I have mentioned you was when I told Starboard Tack that I do not remember anyone calling him your sockpuppet. Sorry for the callout.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'd happily post the links but, oh, the consternation! Quote mining!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)but I promise I won't attack you.
Sending them to me in a PM at my request is certainly not a "quote mining" problem. Especially when I am just asking for you to send me stuff about me.
But, whatever.
rug
(82,333 posts)Go find it. It's easy.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)In your role host, scolded individual people for attacking other people because of what they believe (with atheists virtually always being the ones who are scolded), and yet you flatly decline to do so here, and have also often engaged in the same type of behavior that you upbraid others for.
And treated like shit? You haven't been. Unless having the constant falsehoods and silliness that you post challenged counts.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)on DU. The post has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with nonbelievers on DU.
Consider the following...
He's correct. At least on DU, 'Christians' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance
He's correct. At least on DU, 'Muslims' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance
He's correct. At least on DU, 'Jews' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance
He's correct. At least on DU, 'astrologers' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance
The attack is on DUers themselves, and not their ideology.
The post is vile, and I think the poster should be blocked from Religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)at one particular member.
I would give you a link, but the last time I quoted someone from that group (who just happened to be one of DU's most tenacious and vile trolls), there were ugly consequences.
I am not arguing that this post is ok and I have no interest in defending it at all, but a jury did let it stand.
In regards to a block, I would suggest that the hosts discuss that among ourselves prior to making a decision.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)is different than what you did and I'm pretty sure you know it. If not, I could explain it again.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)You've chided others in the past for doing exactly what you just did. An obvious broad-brush smear was used to attack atheists, and you not only ignored the smear, but come to its defense. Saying that "I use the alert function no matter what side they are coming from" rings hollow - it's empty and meaningless rhetoric that may sound good to you but is nothing than empty words.
You take a one sided view of things, then acted shocked and bewildered when we point it out.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)you decide instead to defend those theists (and yourself) that haven't said a word about it.
And the silence of the theists does not go away because others (read: atheists) have said something.
You are one that said explicitly you would fight bigotry against atheists when you saw it. So are you claiming that post isn't bigotry or just don't feel like fighting against it?
Silent3
(15,181 posts)I have no doubt there are anti-gay attitudes among atheists. While definitions of atheism are debated, no reasonably accurate definition says anything one way or the other about attitudes towards homosexuality and other gender issues. Taking a stance on the existence of deities has no direct connection to any particular stance on any other topic, be it about sexuality or anything else.
That said, in my experience I've seen much more LGBT support among American atheists and humanists and skeptics than in the overall American religious community. Whatever bad examples you might have encountered, you'd have a hard time proving that it is at all typical or exemplary of atheists. I went to this years "Reason Rally" in Washington, and support there for issues like gay marriage was loud and enthusiastic.
I haven't even heard of "Darwin Central" before. Is this what you mean: http://www.darwincentral.org/?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There are rightwing atheists and skeptics. Shit happens.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I wish I had those few minutes back.
madmom
(9,681 posts)Why not post them here for all to see?
daaron
(763 posts)
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)even though you have still been posting on DU this morning. I guess you would be "the vicious promulgator of ignorance and bigotry" not DU's atheists.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)You have had about six hours to compile those links, but you have nothing. You have nothing because there is nothing. If you find anything, let us all know....if not, please stop bashing other DUers. I have trouble believing that you are allowed to say this shit.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Actually I'm glad about that. Were this hate screed hidden the poster could not reply. As it Is now, the poster has no excuses and looks more foolish by the minute.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)than it does about the poster.
Warpy
(111,222 posts)That is all.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Please provide me links to back up this statement: At least on DU, 'atheists' are some of the most vicious promulgators of ignorance.
Thanks
frogmarch
(12,153 posts)figured out, don't you? 
Please show us your links. I want to see for myself this "anti-gay ignorance" displayed by DU atheists.
Where's Darwin Central on DU? I've never heard of it. Oh, wait, that must be the nickname given to atheists by the anti-science crowd. Wait again...I didn't know DU had an anti-science crowd.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
What a steaming pile.
Edit: any links to those threads yet?
Sid
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Any church any Sunday.
P.s. comedians, regardless of their religion or lack there of, are frequently misogynist racist homophobic and otherwise offensive.
The actual complaint here is that it costs too much. Again, compared to what? Church?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the organized atheist previously. It seems that leadership needs to pay attention.
Frankly, I don't care for misogynistic, racist, homophobic humor....
but that's just me.
daaron
(763 posts)Not that I attend any atheist groups, in fact until not that long ago, I went to church - but like 90% of all atheists and agnostics, part of the joy of quitting god is quitting his churches, synagogues, temples, retreats, study-groups, etc. It's a freeing feeling - like switching to boxers after many years of wearing a chastity belt. Why would we want to organize? Most of us left because we're sick of all the psycho-babble and spiritual rationalizing, to begin with. Sick of hypocrites - even ones like us.
Also, most of us don't have any problem calling a bigot a "bigot," without checking their membership card, first. The fact is, I've known lots of atheists, and date one, but have yet to meet a racist or homophobic one. Usually it's the opposite - they go all unhinged at the slightest hint of racism, homophobia or sexism.
Maybe the "leadership" of "organized atheism" does indeed need to take a look in the mirror. I'd suggest that to them if I had any idea who they supposedly were. The fact is, the leaders of organized atheism don't lead anyone but themselves and each other. Us casually atheist folks couldn't really give a rat's patootie (hope I spelled that right).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are racists and homophobes of all stripes. Clearly being either a theist or an atheist does not confer any protection from those things.
There are actually some strong, pro-active atheist groups with leaders and these are not the first complaints about sexism in particular.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But I'll put them up against what the religious camp has going for them at any time.
daaron
(763 posts)self-identification isn't a reliable indicator. Too fluid, as you point out in regards to my own complete conversion. (BWAHAHAHA!) It was particularly easy for me - seeing as I was raised by an atheist, had once considered myself atheist, and fell back into the habit when confronted with narrow-thinking Christians on moving to a sort of fundie dominated area - to take that label for the benefit it bestows (along with, I know, it's obvious drawbacks). That benefit, of course, would be that nobody wants to touch me with a 10-foot pole, which is how I like it. I figured it'd be too confusing to keep two labels going - one for meatspace, and one for cyberspace - so I picked one.
But my positions haven't changed. I still find early Christianity fascinating. How is it that upon my label-changing, all of the magic of my negligible remaining belief drained out and evaporated in a puff? I would have been arguing the same arguments as before, but with a different label - surely the new label has no influence on those arguments.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That, of course, is not true for many others.
And it's particularly not true when people are on a discovery tour to look for a better understanding of what they might or might not believe.
However, I understand clearly that the labels are very important in certain segments of society and am glad to be in a place were it matters not at all.
daaron
(763 posts)I guess that's regular is respectful, when agreeing, though. Since they are a mere convenience, one would think they would matter not at all in most places. Oddly, it seems to matter very much to a great many. Even here on DU it seems like there are sides that must be chosen to wear the debating team's colors. I could easily switch sides tomorrow, if this label wasn't presently so comforting.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in this group are more interested in the discussion than in a win/lose debate. You will find many who don't label themselves at all. Either they don't feel comfortable with a label or choose to keep it to themselves.
Labels can be comforting and they can provide you with community, neither of which is bad. But, imho, they are not necessary.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and why that difference matters. Atheists don't claim that their worldview provides a superior moral framework (or ANY moral framework) for how to live their lives. Religion (some brands in particular) does, and claims that, because of it, they are entitled to ram their beliefs down everyone's throat in the form of laws and governmental mandates or restrictions. The lie has been put to religion's claim so many times that it isn't worth counting them any more, but people like you still act as enablers for religion's claim to superior moral standing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Since statistically the majority of self-identified atheists are white, male and straight (and, I suspect, privileged in other ways), it is not terribly surprising that there are some issues that need to be addressed in order for the groups to become more inclusive and sensitive.
daaron
(763 posts)Organized atheism is entirely political in nature, and attract politically-active firebrands - many of whom are looking for an Occupy-like brand of camaraderie upon which to hang their ideological hats. Does it mean something that young white men are disproportionately likely to say, "To hell with god, I'm outta here"? Does it mean something that pews are mostly filled with women?
My GF and her best friend are atheists here in farmland Missouri; we're the only three we know of. But we don't get together to talk about atheism. We get together to ride the Rhino, or horses, or pick blackberries, or entertain my GF's BFF's 4 yo redneck-in-training-pants. In fact, we've never had one conversation about atheism. Another one of the great things about casual atheism is that you get back all those hours you used to spent navel-gazing and fretting over the demographic makeup of your social movement.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)People like to be with like minded people and while you and your friends may not talk about your atheism, I will note that others do (see the A/A group, in which you regularly participate).
I spend time with both theists and atheists. Sometimes we talk about religion, but most times we talk of other things.
Your *navel gazing* and fretting represent your experience and yours alone. For others it is contemplation and assessment of options.
daaron
(763 posts)I don't do much navel-gazing, so it's misapplied to me. I was speaking of the navel-gazing that occurs regularly in religious groups - that is, I'm using the term such that is spans group study to group prayer and liturgy. (Did I mention fretting? THAT I'll do all I want, thx, but never alone. 
)
SOME people like to be with like minded people. For some us, like minded people are if anything worse than dissimilar minded people. For instance, I lived in a town in NM populated by a 98% liberal, multicultural crowd. Couldn't stand 'em. Rural Missouri is a step up, because at least so far people aren't badgering me to believe every oovy-groovy New Age woo imaginable - from astrology to the Mayan apocalypse. Gah.
And SOME people are introverts and recluses - and there's nothing wrong with them for avoiding interpersonal contact. Yes, I'm a 'member' of groups (including this one, A/A, science, and Scientific American subscriber - does that count?). These are online groups. They are qualitatively different from actual groups of preening humans. You on DU are all disembodied, thinly-veiled personalities, from this side of the screen - as, I imagine, I am to you. (As I sit in my cluttered shop behind the farmhouse, hiding from grandma and missing my sons on this father's day - so, yeah, hence a little crabby. Plus, my ma-not-in-law and her crazier-than-thou hubby are dining with us PRECISELY at 5pm, so that makes me crabby, too.)
Why do I feel this way about people in general? Because, in general, I'm an introvert. In general, I prefer to be alone. I'm a loner, not a lone wolf. Why bother, even with the internet? Thank you, internet: for this.
Thank you internet for people like you, who come here to actually talk about these subjects, not like in my real life, where these subjects are taboo for the sake of social stability - to maintain the status quo. People in groups become intimidated or intimidating, to me - like scorpions in a cage, equidistant and rigid. Individual creativity is stifled in groups, proportional to the size of the group. Like my dad used to say, "You got one kid, you got a kid. You got two kids, you got half a kid. You got three kids, you got no kid at'all."
That's why I don't join, but do come here - I can stop and chew out my 16 yo nephew-not-in-law for stealing my bike last night before he got in a brawl and had himself arrested. Just now. We didn't have a chance to get into how his perception of hypocrisy in his hypocritical, hyper-religious Methodist father has caused him to misdirect his rebellion at me, another father who has never treated him with anything but respect. But there it is - a religious subject I could have discussed with someone in my real life, who would've walked away, deaf to it all. Here, people only reply if they want to, and nothing's riding on the debate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Your post was moving and I appreciate your honesty and directness here.
I feel much like you do. A recluse to a large extent these days, but grateful for the opportunity to interact on my schedule and how I choose on the internet. Much of what you describe is why I stay safely on my boat most of the time, enjoying communicating with the wildlife, watching the scenery, fiddling around.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write this. It was really nice to read and I feel that I understand you better.
daaron
(763 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)whether any of the gods that are not believed in by atheists actually exist or not? I'll answer, since I know you won't....zero...zip..nada.
The same red herring that so many other thoughtless people throw out to make atheists look wrong about their lack of belief.
Some guy who believes in the resurrection of the dead won't be going to any atheists meetings!
Somebody cal the NYT's!!!
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)beliefs or opinions. That would be because he hasn't been here long enough.
turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)BUT first a dot of humor. About nine years old my dad makes me an offer that just couldn't be refused; he would pay me $2 a week to laugh at his jokes, two conditions: 1) have to laugh at all of his jokes, EVERY time he told them and 2) could never let mom know. So being the greedy child in love with the entire penny and nickel candy counter at the corner store.... Still especially "So I said to the lady with the wooden leg, "Peg.", it did get to be a challenge to respond with an actual LAUGH. To THIS day every time I hear myself or someone else say "On the other hand" automatically come the words"She had a wart". The results were an adult life where one is easily amused- of course the downside is being easily amused is only happy for me personally.
That said, and this is offered as sincerely as possible AND if I can actually manage to get the link posted here. If you can't laugh at yourself, then who is worth laughing at. At the site go to wherever it says lutheran humor.
[link:http://www.oldlutheran.com/oldlutheran/page.php|
As to this thread:
The truth is I find the comments and even barbs of atheists and skeptics less inflammatory as compared to the destruction and belittling done by the Fundies! I did not know this would be so, but this is most certainly true.
Don't look for me to attack you or your beliefs. Science can explain much, give us security about when and how and perhaps why. We know that different areas of the brain implement specific activities...but we cannot know what the precise thought is, it just comes across as "activity". Where does inspiration come from? How did Pachelbel get those notes to his music? The problem with too many of my species is the inability to see or taste or hear and remaining untouched. Some of us see that American Flag go by in a parade and tears run down our cheeks. The taste of the perfect peach, I grew up amid orchards, and each summer sought that perfect peach, the color, the softness, the juiciness, the size and of course its sweetness. Guess am trying to get to the individuality.
It is my belief that each of us comes with a soul, belonging to no one else to control or manipulate, we use our reasonings to grow it- or give into it. The ONE fallacy is the rediculous belief we have the right to impact the soul of another life.
Spirituality isn't the source of the problem, its the fools that interpret and demand to be in control in Religion.These folks have little sense of humor. What would have been the reason for turning water into wine? No one asks that. Why did Nimrod want to build his Tower so he could be eye-to-eye with God? Why did the Jewish people wander so any decades in the desert, when it should only have been a six month walk at most? IF there is an afterlife, I dunno this one takes up most of my focus. Yet if there is a chance to ask questions, whether my judgement is up or down, I've a LOT of questions first. Someone told me that at the moment of death, there's this AHA, "so that's what it meant", moment.
Took on hospice cases, my rent demanded it, and not one of them writhed in anguish, dying is a lot of physical work, systems have to shut down, etc. BUT in "natural death" there is this time of quiet tranquility. Dunno where that comes from.
Likely due to being paid to laugh at dad's jokes influenced my concept of Deity, mine has a sense of humor, a sense of compassion, and that overused word love. Artist, poet and genius. yeah, that's the one! Respect and FEAR are not necessarily the same. Worse, personally there are have too many instances where after a while "coincidence" quits working. I call these miracles, they were out of nowhere, small, significant only to my personal existence. They are like the time I climbed a massive rock to watch the sunset on the Pacific, the crashing of the waves was overwhelming, the taste of the mist all over your face. Then out of nowhere, that ebb tide, that small time period where it was the silence that was deafening-not what the physical and senses were used to. My greatest flaw is my idea that I have some great RIGHT to independence, the pride and vanity that I can do this all and all by myself. So being sustained was quite the shock, and repeatedly makes it a definite impact.
Humility.
Yeah, I'll be working on that one quite a while.
When a commonality becomes organized, that seems to be when there is bruising. Like that perfect peach, you can't find it in the produce aisle for all the reasons its perfect.
Peace be with you, your minds may not believe, but your actions are decent and honorable. UNLIKE some that claim to be of my Beliefs.
okay the old broad did not manage to get the link to appear...another DUH? moment
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Tell me what you are trying to do.
rug
(82,333 posts)turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)in 1958.- inflation and all, you're getting off cheap!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Tell me how you tried to do it and I will tell you where you might have had trouble.
(note that links do not work in the title bar, just in the message text)
struggle4progress
(118,270 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)daaron
(763 posts)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)sending my own children to Public Schools for NO RELIGION, spare me religion. Keep religion to YOURSELF. I am old enough to remember those those days in the 50s and 60s when religion was a PRIVATE MATTER. We are going backwards in time. Today everone has to be a CHRISTIAN. There are no more Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, etc, but Christians. It's Christians against all the hethians, and that includes Jews also, despite the Judeo/Christian rants. They don't want Jews, let alone any other non-Christians. SICK of RELIGION. Personally, I lean more to Athiests than Christians in my old age. My children (28 and 32) feel the same way.
onager
(9,356 posts)In January 2010, McCreight did a great job of refuting the tiresome old canard that most atheists are Caucasian geezers. (A canard repeated again in this very thread, of course.)
She compiled a huge list of "Awesome Female Atheists." In the "Activists" category alone, we find...
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Women’s rights activist combating militant Islam
Maggie Ardiente - Development Director at the American Humanist Association
Lauren Becker - Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Inquiry
Lori Lipman Brown - Founding director of Secular Coalition for America
R. Elisabeth Cornwell - Executive director of the U.S. branch of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Margaret Downey - Activist, founder and president of The Freethought Society
Myna Futrell - Co-founder and executive director of The Brights’ Network
Annie Laurie Gaylor - Co-founder and current co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation
Debbie Goddard - director of African Americans for Humanism and Campus coordinator at the Center for Inquiry
Susan Jacoby - director of New York's Center for Inquiry
Ellen Johnson - Atheist activist, former president of American Atheists
Kathleen Johnson - Vice president and military director of American Atheists and founder of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Wendy Kaminer - Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board Member
Lyz Liddell - Campus organizer for the Secular Student Alliance, somehow helps hundreds of non-theist student groups without exploding
June Maxwell - Director of Humanist Academy at Glasgow
Amanda Metskas - Head Director of Camp Quest
Taslima Nasrin - human rights activist
Sumitra Padmanabhan - Secretary of the Humanists' Association of India
Toni van Pelt - Director of the Center for Inquiry-Office of Public Policy
Eugenie Scott - executive director of the National Center for Science Education, outspoken opponent of Intelligent Design and creationism
Ariane Sherine - Creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign
Samantha Stein - Director of Camp Quest UK
Wafa Sultan - Outspoken critic of Islam
Reba Boyd Wooden - Executive Director of Center for Inquiry Indiana
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.htm
