Diversity in the Atheist Community

14 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1. 1
   

   bubba707

   July 6, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   As long as there are those of us who get along with our religious neighbors but are told that’s bullshit and we need to be aggressive there will be a large portion of the nonbelieving public who consider the “movement” irrelevent to our lives.

2. 2
   

   Ace of Sevens

   July 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   We have people who fervently care about the truth and people who like feeling that they are smarter than those religitards who will buy anything that makes them feel like they aren’t gullible. Isn’t that enough diversity?

3. 3
   

   Brownian

   July 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   As long as there are those of us who get along with our religious neighbors but are told that’s bullshit and we need to be aggressive there will be a large portion of the nonbelieving public who consider the “movement” irrelevent to our lives.

   Who is telling you that you can’t get along with your religious neighbors and that you need to be aggressive?

4. 4
   

   James Sweet

   July 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Who is telling you that you can’t get along with your religious neighbors and that you need to be aggressive?

   Yeah, I was sorta wondering the same thing. There’s plenty of saying, “Don’t tell me I have to get along with my religious neighbors,” but I’m not seeing a lot of people telling you not to get along with your religious neighbors.

   In fact, I wrote a post about this very topic: Nobody should feel compelled to be an activist — just don’t trash-talk about the people who do speak up. Maybe I’m an outlier, but…

5. 5
   

   rroseperry

   July 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Thanks for this video. For one thing it gave me the push i needed to join the African American Humanists, finally.

   I think what Mr. Jules says about the conversations minority groups want to have was one of the most interesting things about this talk. The emergence/revelation (hah) of the importance of social justice to many atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers has been a good thing that’s come out of the last few weeks.

6. 6
   

   Sunil D'Monte

   July 7, 2012 at 12:02 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   It’s a great talk, there were lessons in it for us Indian freethinkers and secular humanists also. The movement (at least the online movement) here is largely dominated by ex-Hindu, ex-”upper” caste men… similar marginalisations exist here in India – the Muslim community for example. What Alix Jules says about culture and identity being tied up with religion applies here too.

7. 7
   

   Marcus

   July 7, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Amen to that, there is a serous disconnect between the active atheist or the and the common passive atheist.

   To bubba:

   Is this a war or a movement, because wars won with aggressive action and conquering….Movements are won with words and winning over the HEARTS of those who oppose us.

   And if history tells us anything….Movements last longer

8. 8
   

   DrugMonkey

   July 7, 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Do you need to reach out to atheists who find NewTurboAtheists self-importantly annoying, hilariously blinkered and practitioners of the same cultural themes of the religious?

9. 9
   

   Stephanie Zvan

   July 7, 2012 at 9:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Oh, to about the same extent any social justice movement has to reach out to the comfortable parts of its constituency who are embarrassed by the loud people working on their behalf.

10. 10
    

    maria

    July 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    “Who is telling you that you can’t get along with your religious neighbors and that you need to be aggressive?”

    How about PZ Myers, for a start, badmouthing “accommodationist” atheists because we’re willing to work alongside religious people on meaningful projects? He repeatedly insists that we shouldn’t engage in such work, shouldn’t even mingle with people of faith, as if we’re shirking some kind of moral responsibility by not badgering them. Meanwhile, we’re representing godlessness positively, changing perceptions, even getting people to question their beliefs who might not repond to PZ’s brand of in-your-faceness. Far from welcoming atheists of all stripes, the interwebs and conferences are full of this attitude.

11. 11
    

    lylebot

    July 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    He repeatedly insists that we shouldn’t engage in such work

    No he doesn’t. He says the opposite: that multiple strategies are needed. His problem with accommodationists is when they tell him to stop what he’s doing.

12. 12
    

    Maria

    July 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    That’s simply wrong. Have you actually listened to his direct responses on this topic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsqqFpWh7m8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

13. 13
    

    Tom Foss

    July 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    It’s not wrong, which you’d know if you spent five seconds googling. I recommend ‘Pharyngula multiple strategies,’ which brought up one of many posts on the subject. To wit:

    There is a fair point being made, that there are multiple strategies that work to convince people to rethink bad ideas, and they don’t all involve punching people in the face…and many of the best strategies do involve politely listening and criticizing. But I think the best ideas involve a combination of willingness to listen and politely engage, and a forthright core of assertiveness and confrontation — tactical dickishness, if you want to call it that.

    Or this one (from a search for “pharyngula diplomacy”):

    I’m saying we have to do it all, embracing a wide range of tactics, including the proximate tools of psychology and holding high a coherent and strong set of principles. Unfortunately, in recent years, many of the people in this movement have wrongly decided that the most firmly principled people in our ranks are all dicks who need to be chastened — a weakness the other side does not have. I sometimes feel like we spend more time gnawing at our foundations than we do effectively peeling away opponents to our side.

    So here we are, once again talking about how to communicate, and I fear that we’ll lose is the sense of what to communicate. Don’t forget: the truth is our pole star, science is the vessel we use to progress, and a passion to explore and learn is the engine of our purpose. If we lose sight of that in our concern to be gentle with those who impede us, we’ll lose our way.

    Now, it’s possible that, in the video you posted, he contradicted this position on which he’s been quite consistent. It’s also possible that he was speaking off the cuff, or that you’re primed to misinterpret what he’s saying because you already think he “insists that we shouldn’t engage in such work, shouldn’t even mingle with people of faith.” But I don’t have an hour and a half to sit through it and find out which is which. I’ve provided specific quotes that refute your position; perhaps you could do the same to support it? Or at least provide relevant timestamps?

    Also worth reading: Greta Christina’s “Diplomacy and Accommodationism Are Not the Same Thing”.

14. 14
    

    shel

    July 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    Rather than discuss PZ and his methods, I’d like to hear (good) ideas and (better) plans people have for reaching out to these communities in their locales (real or virtual).

    (Best) I’d appreciate advice on how to do this in a city where there’s no CFI/AAH presence. The “heart” of African American social connectivity around here is mostly church-based, but maybe African American arts organizations present an opportunity? How does someone get something going besides occasionally mentioning “actually, I’m a humanist” to friends/family/colleagues/FB?