I’ve been vicariously following the #MovingSocialJustice conference this weekend, and feeling that these are really my people. At the same time, though, my nominal people, the ones called atheists, seemed to be remarkably stirred up and have been hitting me with messages of protest: don’t you know that atheism only means you don’t believe in gods? It has zero meaning beyond that. It’s just a straightforward, simple term that has been overloaded by those nasty Social Justice Warriors.
I don’t know what has roused these guardians of the One True Meaning this week — I suspect it’s the latest idiocy from #gamergate — there is some overlap between atheist and gaming communities, and definitely between some atheists and the anti-feminists.
So I get bizarre comments like this one:
Heh. RT @RuthlessAtheist: @DeityFree @pzmyers Im just dont agree with the whole trying to make atheism into some kind of belief system.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) October 10, 2014
Im just dont agree with the whole trying to make atheism into some kind of belief system.
(Don’t mob him: I think he realized what an awesomely stupid thing he had just written, and deleted it fairly quickly.)
I guess we atheists are just so especially special, that none of our ideas are beliefs, but just simply embodied reality. I have gotten so many emails from atheists insisting that we can’t acknowledge a speck of opinion or mere belief or even emotion, or it means that atheism is exactly the same as a religion. We must insist on complete denial that what atheism is is an interpretation of the nature of the universe.
I think it’s a really good interpretation, and it has the advantage that it’s built on a framework of evidence, and it’s a far better and more thorough explanation than anything religion has ever had to offer, but let’s not pretend that it can be somehow absolute. Jeez, next thing you know, someone will reject the entirety of philosophy, or tell us that science isn’t a philosophy.
And then I found that Michael Luciano had published this remarkable article, decrying the whole notion that atheism could be…something…more than just a flat abstraction.
There’s a weird trend that’s been slinking its way through the social justice community, whereby so-called New Atheists are being denounced for supposedly failing to embrace liberal causes such as diversity and equality.
That’s a lovely sentence. What “weird” trend? Why, the weird ideas of diversity and equality. How freakish! Such absurd, alien ideas would have to “slink” to sneak their way into the company of true rationalists, like atheists. Mr Luciano seems to think this is causing some phony problems.
Apparently, atheism has a “race problem,” or maybe it should be called a “white male problem.” Whichever the case, it appears atheism also has a “shocking woman problem.”
All of these problems must not be real, since they’re only apparent and all get the scare quote treatment.Apparently, we must diminish these so-called problems so that we won’t have to deal with them. This is an astonishing degree of denial, especially since the next thing he does is quote Sikivu Hutchinson, a black woman, talking about the things that white atheists fail to address. Luciano verifies her point by continuing to ignore them, and further asserting that these aren’t real problems that atheists must deal with. Why? Because atheism defines them away.
Did I sleep through some radical redefining of the word ‘atheist’? It’s always been my understanding that an ‘atheist’ is someone who simply lacks belief in deities. That’s it. Somehow, though, it’s suddenly incumbent on atheists to take up certain social and political causes, and that’s just silly.
No, you didn’t! You just conveniently ignore some of the words. Here’s a definition for you: “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”. There is an important word in there: “person”. Atheists are people. These dictionary atheists are always quick to forget that. People have responsibilities to each other, and further, the rejection of religion and the understanding that the universe, and we human beings, lack any kind of grand purpose, shapes the pattern of those responsibilities. You simply cannot pretend that atheism is meaningless outside one philosophical abstraction.
Well, I suppose you can…but then how can you find any reason to even be an atheist?
There’s also a really low bar set here. Valuing diversity — the idea that atheism should be equally welcoming to all races and sexes — and valuing equality — that everyone in that community should have the same status — are such basic ideas that it’s shocking that anyone could regard their promotion as a sign of a corrupting conspiracy by Social Justice Warriors. Who the fuck would argue with those ideas? Virtually no one. Definitely no one that we would want to accommodate in the atheist movement.
Demanding that part of the responsibility of being an atheist should also mean being a decent human being who wants to build functional, useful communities doesn’t sound like a particularly onerous expectation to me. Of course, what that also means is that atheism needs to broaden its goals and its membership to serve a larger proportion of the population.
That’s also a pragmatic reason to support diversity and equality, even for the Libertarians among us. The issues that many white males care about — such as separation of church and state and science education — becomes an easy no brainer if we’ve got 100 million atheists in the US. But the only way to get to those large numbers is to also recognize that there are other issues that people would like us to work towards. Ignore that and be forever marginalized and frustrated.
The real problem isn’t sneaky liberals in the atheist movement. It’s lazy thinkers who see atheism purely as an entitlement for their social group rather than a responsibility to the whole of humanity.
One other problem: that Luciano article is illustrated with this.
They’re right. You’re wrong.
Really? They’re just “right”? On everything? Yeesh. That’s an appallingly stupid image.
Can we also purge the hero-worshipping authoritarianism from this movement?
Just looking at that picture indicates a certain lack of diversity…
I’m in with the anti-authoritarian call, PZed. Point me to the storage racks, I’ll take a pitchfork and two torches.
I’d be curious to know exactly how many topics that group of men agree on. You know, considering they are all right.
NDT? That dude explicitly does not identify as an atheist. The one and only position that matters, and 1/10 of the people on the poster don’t agree.
A double facepalm isn’t enough for this, but I’m not flexible enough to add my feet. Any ideas?
What do you mean? They’ve got men, a woman, some people of color… What on earth could be missing?
/snark
Seriously, that was the first thing that popped out at me too.
Funny how these supposedly intelligent and responsible *snicker* men all think that they have no responsibility to all of society. The liberturds think of nobody but themselves, and the misogynists think only half the population is people. Not showing they understand that humans form societies, and they are part of it. They just come across as pitiful human beings.
The anti-authoritarian call is appropriate. They aren’t authorities in my mind. The authorities to look up to are those trying to improve the society as a whole, not just their piece of it.
Anti-authoritarianism is built into science. Watch me do science, motherfu!*#$&*!(ers!!!
How many of these people became it-just-means-I-don’t-believe-in-gods atheists
only so they could sleep-in on Sunday morning?
What IS it with these assholes? The only acceptance they care about is for their precise demographic. Anyone else can suck it up.
At first it seemed to me that #gamergate has the reverse situation: they’re desperately clinging to the ‘gamer’ label as if it confers some sort of meaning or identity, beyond the dictionary definition of ‘one who plays games’.
But I considered it some more, and it’s really pretty much the same as with Dictionary Atheists. Any attempt to get them to think about the social implications of their collective interest is met with resistance and hostility; “we just want to play games.” They want to claim the mantle of a community and identity without needing to actually think about what that means.
Someone doesn’t understand that atheism =/= atheist movement. The atheist movement, comprised of people who are (by and large) atheists, has a problem with diversity. Fucking words. They work sometimes.
Hey! The ‘They’re Right’ graphic covers alot of demographics!
POC, woman, dead people…
It does seem to be missing ‘people under the age of 30’.
…
ohwell
they should get off my lawn
Re: the Daily Banter article-
Why do I think this comment I just left is going to receive some nasty responses?
https://twitter.com/dorolfe/status/520199487105802240
I was just saying something similar with regards to Libertarians, but it applies equally to the dudebro atheist leadership: How can a political movement — and movement atheism is a political movement — dedicated to elitism get anywhere? Just as PZ said, it can’t. The Libertarians (and conservatives) that want to destroy religious privilege because FREEEDOM!! (though they will deny the word privilege often enough) will never, ever make any progress with their secularist goals if they can’t build a reasonably sized voting and lobbying bloc. The only alternative is what has worked so well for rich-ass conservatives: corrupt the shit out of the system.
Dave Silverman says he shares the goal of destroying religious privilege? How are you gonna do that with only old white atheist dudes voting with you and throwing money at your causes?
Well, it seems that the old ultimate divisions of race and religion have given way to a new ultimate division of political affiliation. I find it much easier to hang out and argue with my liberal Christian friends than my conservative atheist friends. My liberal Christian friends and I have a gay old time poking, prodding, and mocking each other’s existential beliefs. They are batshit crazy when it comes to gods, miracles, churchy stuff, etc. But their social consciousnesses are quite exemplary–they make me blush with shame at times. On the other hand, it is often quite a chore to have any kind of meaningful conversation with my conservative atheist friends. They are some damn cold-hearted bastards and I find myself a bit weary at the end of an evening with them.
Of course, my conservative Christian family makes me want to jump off the nearest bridge….
I am an atheist and unfortunately there is not any inherent property in atheism to support a social justice agenda. That’s why there are so many D-bag libertarians who are atheists.
But PZ is right that there should be more to atheism. Madalyn Murray O’Hair also thought there should be too.
In order for me to a more decent person I expanded my atheism by becoming a secular humanist.
O’Hair joined the American Humanist Association and was on its board for a short time but quit because back then the AHA had a diversity problem.
It is better these days but one needs to keep an eye on it.
cadfile @16:
I agree with you about there not being any inherent social justice property to atheism.
But.
I think a strong case can be made that atheism *ought* to entail more, *if* one is willing to check their religious baggage (i.e. the opinions and beliefs one holds that accompanies god-belief). And yes, I think people *should* be willing to check their baggage.
I find it curious that some atheists argue against atheism and social justice mixing, yet they advocate church/state separation.
Good lord, that picture…does the author even realise that it sums up the fucking problem perfectly? That just two people of colour – including the one woman atheist the artist could be bothered googling a picture of – and eight white guys (one of whom is deceased) are supposed to represent Atheism™ is an instance of supreme, irredeemable cluelessness.
This is precisely why many atheists decry having “leaders” at all – because there’s always some fucking idiot/s who place them above any inquiry or criticism, turning them into the Establishment (or watching happily as they do so themselves) and appointing themselves their brave guardians and loyal lickspittles.
Well, fuck Establishment Atheism. Fuck its beefeaters, fuck its thralls and fuck its apologists.
Many of us turned toward atheist activism in part because of the authoritarian nature of religion and the deference paid to it by the political establishment; fuck atheists who just turn around and institute the exact same kind of insulated top-down pre/proscriptive structures we’ve disavowed, and then decry from their battlements anyone who doesn’t conform to their image of Atheism.
Atheism might not contain but it certainly strongly implies certain positions on social issues: mostly, that without a religious or supernatural source for morals, ethics, law and societal cohesion, humans have to work those things out themselves and base them on reason.
In the realm of social justice, discrimination against women, LGBT people, people of colour and non-religious people, have many religious justifications. Examined in the absence of those religious justifications, there more or less are no reasonable justifications for such discrimination. This implies that the discrimination, being unreasonable, is therefore unjust. Injustice demands opposition; it demands justice.
Atheists often point to the discrimination they experience at the hands of the religious due to their lack of belief; is opposing that discrimination not a social justice issue? What of keeping classrooms, local councils and other public areas and ceremonies secular, so as not to discriminate against non-believers or non-Christians? Is that not seeking justice?
The whole “Out” campaign and the scarlet “A” embraced by Dawkins and still embraced by many – is that not an example of seeking social justice? Surely attempting to create a cultural/social environment where atheism is not only acceptable as just another point on the philosophical spectrum, but is as unremarkable as your choice of football team, is an attempt at creating a more just society?
I hope that one day those currently throwing social justice under the bus realise that they themselves were at the forefront of a social justice campaign for atheists for years – that is, until atheist women and people of colour got involved and started asking questions that made Establishment Atheism just as uncomfortable as its members (the old New Atheists) used to make establishment religion. Once that happened, social justice instantly became kryptonite, an insult to dismiss and belittle.
Until they do realise that, fuck the establishment and all who sail in it.
Always amazed when someone on the internet thinks “cares about social justice” is an insult. It’s like when someone says I’m “oversensitive” to racism. Nope. Fuck you dude, I’m rightly sensitive to racism and that you aren’t is a big problem.
I don’t follow. Why is it a contradiction for one to simultaneously be a person, not believe in supernatural entities, and not feel any responsibility for people outside of one’s immediate family and social circle? Why cannot one be both an atheist and a misanthrope?
I see both atheism and social justice as good things, but I don’t see how one implies the other.
PZ:
That’s pretty much the sort of atheist I first encountered (not interacted with, just read) all over the internet, that made me go YUCK NO and want nothing to do with ’em. Glad they’re just a noxious subset, though. ::tosses virtual confetti over Horde::
Quoting Luciano:
Yeah dude, so I presume you don’t think any systemic, or systematic, bias against atheists for being atheists needs to be addressed, then? I presume you never go to atheist conventions or any such thing? Because after all it’s not like atheism has any causes attached to it.
PZ:
Some of these dudes really do sound like they just don’t want to deal with things like some religions’ requirements to be a decent person. “Don’t tell me what to do! I won’t obey the Ten Commandments if I don’t feel like it!” It seems a very negative view of atheism they have, doesn’t it? More an “I don’t have to do anything” than any examination of ideas. They don’t even seem to care about the basic “good without God” notion.
As for that illustration … a few of ’em I don’t recognise, but most of the ones I do strike me as a collection of bigoted, largely right-wing, insufferably smug and sometimes downright hateful arseholes. If they’re right, I’ll take being wrong and happy any day … oh, and actually care about other people while I’m at it.
Hey Fakeusername,
Let’s start here http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/01/why-are-you-an-atheist/ and then repeat this entire debate. That should be a fun time.
Your objection isn’t novel and has been addressed.
Actually there are many many things inherent to atheism including social justice, and it’s because dictionary atheism is bullshit. Atheists by their very nature will have a great many beliefs, likes, dislikes, causes, and interests.
People become atheists for many reasons and atheists will naturally group by common interests, and common reasons for leaving religion. Some of those reasons will involve social justice*. Those people will naturally group. It’s socially inevitable.
*Of course there will be atheists grouping by neutral and horrible things too.
I can’t understand such attachment (from both sides) to the word “atheist”.
At the same time, I understand even less why people would be so opposed to discuss the wider implications of atheism.
Unless it makes them uncomfortable…
F.O. @24:
Do you have similar trouble understanding why people are attached to the labels such as:
Gay
Transgender
Bisexual
Lesbian
Hindu
Sikh
or any of a host of the labels with which people self-identify as? Or is ‘atheist’ the only label you don’t understand peoples’ attachment to?
fakeusername @20:
Of course it’s possible to be an atheist and misanthrope. The better question is should you be an atheist and a misanthrope?
Why does responsibility to people end with family and one’s immediate social circle? What differentiates those people from ‘other’ people?
Given that there’s no outside entity, force, or being that’s watching over us that can save us, it’s on humanity to overcome our problems. Add in a dose of the same empathy and compassion you demonstrate for your family and close circle of friends, and it’s not hard to see why you should take interest in the betterment of your fellow man.
fakeusername:
What people are saying is that if you are an atheist and are not concerned with social justice, that’s fine – just stop behaving like an arsehole toward people who are, stop telling us what atheism should and shouldn’t be and for the love of fuck, stop throwing the dictionary around like it’s Scripture. A dictionary mostly describes usage after the fact, it doesn’t proclaim meaning a priori. In fact, I’d be impressed if someone could find me a true “dictionary atheist” with literally no beliefs about society or culture or opinions on what they’d like to change if they could.
That’s not to indict you personally, but there is a particular kind of noisy jumped-up atheist around at the moment who revels in bellowing at other atheists that they shouldn’t be concerned with feminism or social justice of any kind because it dilutes the movement (as if trying to make atheism a safe space so as to attract more atheists is a Bad Thing) or because feminists want to redefine atheism or make it all about them or some such idiocy. My questions for them (apart from “Were you raised by shop mannequins?”) are along the lines of “Who the fuck are you to tell me how to act in accordance with my beliefs?” and “Who the fuck are you to tell me what atheism is or should be or what it can’t include, especially when I’m doing atheism on my own damn time?”
I face-palmed so hard that I combined phrenology and palmistry.
fakeusername @ 20:
You can be, no one is stopping you. However, if you want to have a place in the atheist movement, there has to be more, there has to be passion and commitment to making things better for all people. If you don’t want that, all we ask is that you don’t stand in our way, wasting our time with irrelevant arguments. Be whatever you want to be. Feel whatever you want to feel. Do whatever you want to do. Allow us to do the same.
Iyeska @28, this:
has all the win.
If only phrenology were real. I’d love a job as a retrophrenologist.
Truly, that picture encapsulates the sort of shit from Dawkins or Hitchens or Maher that I despise. It’s even worse than them, since I suppose I could say something they’d agree with (boiling water is hot? The sky is blue?). But the message that picture sends out is “You’re despicable, you’re not one of Us, the one Big Important Thing is being an atheist and if you’re not, well, go crawl under a rock, nothing else about you counts. Oh and btw several of us think you’re inferior to us, because you’re female.”
Fuck the dude who put that picture together.
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! No master! We willnae be fooled again!
Meet the new pale, male and stale ruling class. Same as the old pale, male and stale ruling class.
Kagato @10:
Perhaps in some cases. But in think in many more cases, they have indeed thought about it and rejected the social implications or potential implications.
In the case of atheism, you’re not seeing this hostility because people have such a fierce believe in “separation of atheism and politics” as an abstract matter. The people who whine about PZ and others getting their icky “social justice warrior” values mixed up in pure, precious atheism never have fuck-all to say when Penn Jillette or Michael Shermer spout libertarian philosophy. They barely batted an eyelash when Chris Hitchens advocated for war, or when Sam Harris wades into foreign policy or national security debates. They don’t mind Pat Condell stumping for the UKIP.
No, somehow the complaints about politics tainting the “purity” of their dictionary atheism only comes up when it’s politics they don’t like. Funny how that works.
I am very much an atheist, but there were only three people in the image that PZ closed the post with whom I could not immediately think of at least one, and usually more, instances in which they had been a wrong-headed idiot about something. And it would not surprise me if I could find instances of wrong-headed idiocy for those three people.
A lot of the people pictured are admirable in many ways, but I am not impressed with the rightness of a group of people for whom I could so easily think of examples of wrong-headed idiocy, not even when I agree with them about the things they are right about.
Also, as someone who loves a technicality I’m happy to go along with the statement that “atheism only means not believing in gods/supernatural”….but, all of the societies that each of us were raised in, and a great deal of our understanding of how our societies and ourselves work, is deeply and thoroughly permeated with assumptions about gods and other supernatural entities not only being ‘real’, but often somehow being more important than the reality that we could actually experience. To be a thinking atheist requires questioning everything about what we know about ourselves and our societies, rejecting a concept as deeply ingrained in our thinking as the supernatural necessitates an interactive and iterative critical analysis – and accompanying action – because otherwise you are blindly accepting the supernatural status quo despite protestations to the contrary. Atheism may technically only mean ‘not believing in god’, but technicalities have consequences for how we lead our lives – consequences that we need to think about and deal with responsibly and compassionately.
screechymonkey @ 31
You don’t have to have thought something through rationally to not like it. I’m more inclined to think that they regard views that don’t challenge their preconceptions as not being political. It becomes political when you start asking them to think about it. Then you have an agenda. It’s a byproduct of seeing yourself as the default. Everything about the way you already believe and feel is just The Way Things Are. Anything that seeks to change The Way Things Are is bad and must be opposed. Unless of course there’s something about The Way Things Are that isn’t ideal for them. In that case, it’s simply self evident that it needs to change.
Dear fakeusername @ 20,
No-one here is going to stop you being an atheist and a misanthrope. You could even be an atheist and a hermit, even of the walled into a cave variety if that is your choice.
Why that is not an option for the entire species may be summed up in one word – EBOLA!
Faced with an actual threat rather than one of the nightmares the authoritarians are so keen on having we long ago learned – quite possibly before we became H sapiens – that the only way to survive is to share our knowledge, our technology, our resources on as near an egalitarian basis as we can.
If, though, you’d rather sit back and relax while Ebola becomes endemic in Dallas, then Texas, then the whole of the US, do please go ahead. Don’t be embarrassed about it.
Of course the rest of us will have to blockade your ports again and your descendants, if any, will wait a couple of hundred years until someone with scientific curiosity and less afraid of sharing comes up with a foolproof preventative or cure, which of course he will have to be willing to share with you. He or she may not feel that benevolent.
That “they’re right – your wrong” graphic is full of so much fail. If I am going to use an atheist as an example, I’ll use A. Philip Randolph, not these asshats.
That picture makes me think of clusterfuck being a collective noun.
You know what they call an atheist who is JUST an atheist?
They don’t call them anything, because nobody knows they exist.
The moment you “come out” as an atheist, you’ve become an activist. That’s just the state of the world these days, it’s a fact,
If you deny it, you’re an atheist who is dishonest.
So, since everyone involved in this argument is an activist, then everyone’s activism – the level of it, the direction of it, is something that can be noted, commented on and can be the target of attempts to influence… and in turn, everyone’s activism IS an attempt to influence.
So, anti-activism activists, don’t try to steer the conversation in a direction while claiming you’re not engaging in a conversation let alone trying to steer it.
Nobody’s buying it.
With regard to that image: the only person in it I have any real respect for is the one who explicitly doesn’t identify as atheist. With the exception of Dennett, the rest are varying degrees and kinds of horrible. I don’t pay enough attention to Dennett to judge but he at least seems to have enough sense to stick to his particular field of expertise. Which is really a sad state of affairs that, apparently the best we can hope for from a leader is that they keep their mouth shut about social concerns.
Well, I wouldn’t say that – it’s not fine if anyone, atheist or not, is not concerned with social justice. But I guess what you mean is that, as fakeusername@20 and similar bores tell us at every opportunity, there is no logical implication leading from “There are no gods” to “I should be concerned with social justice”. Yeah, fakeusername, we get that. But if you’re an atheist not concerned with social justice, then what goals can you have in common with other atheists? The same lack of logical implication holds for any other values that might give rise to common goals, such as freedom of speech, or respect for the truth, rationality, science. How then can separation of church and state, or defending science against creationism, or the rights of atheists to express their views without being discriminated against, be common goals of atheists? About the only thing left is a mutual back-slapping smugfest about how clever you are. I suppose if Mensa won’t let you in…
And that’s where this arseholes fail….they think that just because atheism means not believing in gods that they are then absolved of any responsability to be decent human beings and still be tolerated. You can be a complete and utter arsehole and not believe in gods…of course you can, but it shouldn’t surprise you then that most other people don’t seem to like you and don’t want to be represented by you in the public eye or in any other way, let alone share a society with you….
It really is this simple: if you are not a decent human being, if you are not working towards a better society and you believe in any gods, you don’t qualify as an atheist leader. Guess which part has to do with the believing in gods and which one with the “leadership” and “representing” of humans side of things.
Congratulations! You have failed skepticism!
I mean, for one thing, Bill Maher is right? About what? Some things, sure, but I wouldn’t rely on his word for anything. I also thought he was another of the not-atheists? One of the anti-religion, but believes in something type? But that aside, ignoring the fact that there’s disagreement among them on various topics, and ignoring the fact that some of them have shown themselves to be onboard with at least some social justice issues, asserting that a group of ten people are just right? That’s a deeply unskeptical position, and one that’s very dangerous to rational thought. If you want leaders, that’s fine, and it makes sense to pick thoughtful ones, but if you’re going to have thought leaders? Well… just… don’t. That’s a really, amazingly, incredibly bad idea, and it’s going to lead you into habits of lazy thinking and irrationality.
I’d have to agree that very little follows from atheism alone, but apply the few implications of atheism to the real world that we have to live in, mix it up a little with a skeptical approach to life and, even if you don’t really value other people all that much, a great many social justice issues follow from that.
This leads me to the question: “Why do you mix up atheism in that question?” Do you have or expect a different answer when you substitute atheist with theist into your better question?
I think the still better question is: “Should you (as a human) be a misanthrope?” and thus atheism vanishes from the question. And I think it should vanish from all social justice questions.
Imma let you finish, but let me just say this is a silly response you give here.
Saying that one conclusion is not a belief system is not the same as saying no ideas from the people who made that conclusion are beliefs. The two statements aren’t anywhere near the same thing. -_______-
@42 axxyaan
I disagree. There are differences between social justice in a theistic framework and social justice in an atheistic one. If we want to advance society under an atheistic paradigm, then atheism is relevant, it’s just not the entire story, it’s simply one of the defining characteristics of the “universe” in which the social justice questions are asked.
To expand a bit on what azhael says, atheism does imply that there is no supernatural or superhuman set of rules or principles which could tell us what counts as social justice. (I’m aware there are some atheists who believe there is an objective morality, but if they try to specify at all where it comes from, they try to derive it from our human nature as social beings.) We know we have to work things out for ourselves – and since morality and justice are inherently social concepts, we can only do that collectively, using both reasoning and empathy. Now the best of theists, in practice, take a similar approach, discarding those aspects of their scriptures or traditions that don’t fit with the ethical views they have arrived at through collective reasoning and empathy. But as atheists, we are not handicapped by the need to reconcile our ethics with religious traditions which – in every case – contain much that is abominable.
Nick Gotts:
That can’t be left either, since there’s nothing to establish it. If they’re not allowed facts and don’t need to value rationality, I figure Smugfest 2015 will have to be called off. I almost feel sorry for all of the smug, clever nihilists or atheists or whatever the fuck they call themselves.
axxyaan:
Sure, it should. For example, the social justice question “god commands us to kill gay people, so which one should be killed first?” — totally unrelated to the nonexistence of gods. Also: “god made women to be subservient to men, so when are you going to make me a sammich?” Also: “we get to do whatever we want with the environment, other species, etc., because god gave it to us to use as we like, so who wants to drill some more oil and club some baby seals?” And so on.
Get a fucking a clue before you start jabbering.
Nick Gotts:
Well “human nature” sometimes has some confusing connotations, but it’s based on natural, observable, empirical phenomena. I wish it were needless to say that the fact those phenomena are generally human experiences (as well as social relations) does not make them arbitrary or a matter of taste or opinion.
In my last post I, as usual, didn’t interpret “atheism” to mean “The Atheist Movement”.
I still don’t get it. Atheism isn’t a belief system, just one belief? It is a lot of beliefs, but they’re not systematic? I don’t think either of those options work. And it’s certainly not “embodied reality,” as PZ put it, floating around in concept-space divorced from any person who has it. Because that’s absurd, and it’s also getting damned close to supernaturalism.
Anyway, I took it to be about the claim that “none of our ideas” as atheists (in other words, atheistic ideas) are beliefs, not that no ideas whatsoever are. Of course, there are some atheists who like to pretend they don’t have “beliefs” period (because they confuse it with faith), but that silliness needs to go too.
@44 azhael
Could you be more specific? Is there any group of people and any class of social justice issue, where you think the following two questions should be answered differently: “Should you as a member of this group be against equal rights for …” and “Should you as a human be against equal rights for …”
@46 consciousness razor
You are making my point. By phrasing the question “Should you as an atheist be a misantrope”, one gives the impression one will accept different answers for atheists and theists to these questions. Do you think those theistical answers you provided are acceptable? I don’t. I see no reason to accept a different answer just because some god or some leader figure is seen as preffering such a answer. Since I don’t accept a different answer from theists as I would from atheists, I see no use to limit the question to the atheists.
@49 axxyaan
Oh, so you just completely ignore all the religious people who think they are entirely justified in being bigoted against others and feel it is a morally correct thing to do because it is consistent or even expressly prescribed in their holy texts.
Don’t get me wrong, i, like you, hold everybody to the same standards and i most certainly am not willing to modify those standards or make excuses on the basis of irrational believes in preposterous mythologies. Nevertheless i acknowledge that certain things are consistent or even demanded from a theistic point of view for which there is no basis whatsoever in an atheistic universe. So it does matter and it is certainly relevant to specify that these questions about social justice are being formulated on an atheistic frame, as well as a human frame, a rational frame, a naturalistic frame, etc, etc….
Sure it is, but that doesn’t mean you can derive “objective” ethics from those phenomena; although they can certainly inform rational debate about ethics.
@50 azhael
No I don’t ignore them, I ask them the same question and will not accept special pleading from them. My impression is that the original questions ignores the theists by explicitly asking only atheists. “Why should you as an atheist …” is only a question for atheists and thus ignores the theists. As such it suggests you won’t hold theists to the same standard.
Regarding Dennett being one of the good ones….read his quoted statement at the end of this article about Dawkins’ date rape tweetery and see if you still think his silence is an inherent sign of him agreeing with us: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html
No, all of our glorious leaders are kinda shit. Also, as already mentioned, Neil doesnt identify as atheist. And last I checked (two years ago so…) the odious buffoon Bill Maher didn’t either. “Agnostics” or what not.
axxyaan:
Rather than discussing what you would “accept”, let me ask you if you would expect a different answer from a theist because their god has a preference?
In other words, if you had a holy book that made a claim, would you expect identical reactions to that claim from a believer and a non-believer?
And to go a step further, who do you think is more likely to be swayed by a logical argument towards the answer you will accept?
Jafafa Hots @37:
Could you clarify that for me? By coming out, do you mean being public about it? It reads to me like something that would affect a USian more than an Australian, for instance. Most people I’ve known in my life were atheist or near-as-dammit; it simply wasn’t something that’d come up in conversation, let alone being, for example, a matter employers would dream of raising (unless you worked for a religious institution, obviously).
anteprepro @53
::reads Dennett’s garbage::
::whistles::
So, Mr Bright ain’t so bright after all. Just another chucklefuck. They really are the Four Horseapples.
This is something that has probably been discussed before, but it only just occurred to me. Apologies if this is old hat. These atheists who don’t want social justice linked to atheism remind me of Christians of the type that say god’s grace is everything. “Dictionary” Christians. That all you need to be saved is to pray to God to forgive you and to accept Jesus as savior. Everything else is added on. These same people may act just as good or as horrible as anyone else. Horrible is not uncommon. Caring about others is entirely optional to their salvation. The stuff Jesus supposedly said about caring for the poor or for “the least of these” often never figures in and absolutely doesn’t change their salvation in their minds. How much more do I prefer social justice Christians who take those alleged messages of Jesus to heart and consider caring for others a vital and necessary part of their Christianity. The anti-SJW dictionary atheists have not much to recommend them over the dictionary Christians and it seems to me that they share some ways of thinking.
2kittehs, #56
This whole “ranking of violent crimes” pisses me off. Who the fuck started this and why?
Only the specific victim of the specific crime knows how they feel. If I a rape victim tells Dawkins or Dennett they wish they had died instead of survived the vicious rape, I’m guessing their response would be, “Oh no! Don’t you know? Any murder is worse than any rape! Here, consult my crime hierarchy chart.”
learninglate, #57
I think that’s a good analogy. It’s like saying “Hey, as long as you say Christianity is false all the ills of the world will just go away because they’re only due to Christianity” just as that dictionary Christian may say just have faith and it’s all good.
learninglate @57 – I hadn’t thought of it either, but yes, it does remind me of the “salvation by faith alone” and good works not counting at all stuff Luther and Calvin and co went in for. Superiority by lack of faith alone, maybe, in this case.
No, I’m not. Neither are you.
You’re right that all people should be moral, not just atheists. But that’s pretty trivial. Don’t make this about “you as a human.” We already know you’re a human being. It adds no information.
Do gods exist? No? Then that is a fact, and facts matter. Do humans get an afterlife? Do we have a cosmic purpose? Does prayer ever do any good? No, no, no, no. Those are facts, and if any of those things were true, they would be highly relevant, even if they’re not given the bog standard, hate-fueled, conservative-theist interpretation. Likewise, it’s just as relevant that they’re false (and important socially, because so many believe otherwise). There are plenty of reasons why theistic morality is wrong across the board, but the basic fact that gods don’t exist (along so many other such facts) is one of them. It’s not something you just get to dismiss with a wave of your hands.
Nick Gotts:
I won’t argue the point in this thread. I wanted to clarify your description, whether or not you wanted to give a sympathetic one.
@54 Anri
Why should it matter what I expect from theists? Does that somehow imply this is a question that only should be asked of atheists? Would that make the god excuse acceptable?
Do you think it is worthwhile to influence theists towards more social justice, even if it wouldn’t influence them towards atheism? Or do you only find it worthwhile to influece someone towards social justice after they left their faith? To me asking a question like: “Why should you as an atheist care about …” suggest the latter. That is why I prefer to substitute atheist with human.
Saad @58
Goodness knows who started it, but it sure works for the criminals, or their defenders, the ones giving them cover, doesn’t it? “Oh stop making a fuss, it was only [insert crime of choice], it could have been so much worse!”
anteprepro @ 53
Who said Dennett is one of the good ones? I said I only respect one of them and that the one I respect is the one who explicitly doesn’t identify as atheist (i.e. Neil DeGrasse Tyson). The point I was trying to make is that I only don’t class Dennett as horrible because he mostly keeps his mouth shut on social issues. I wasn’t trying to express any confidence in what he’d say if he did speak about social concerns.
I knew of his response to Dawkins’ rape ranking asshattery but wasn’t holding it against him because I have no idea how closely he was actually following it or how the author of the article put the question to him. I was mostly giving him credit for having, to date, avoided making an utter mockery of himself. Which is rather a dubious honor.
2kittehs @ 56
Brights was Dawkins’ thing, not Dennett’s. IIRC Dennett never liked the idea.
RE: Maher, last I knew he called himself apatheist, i.e. he doesn’t care. Not sure whether that means he doesn’t know and doesn’t care or if he’s atheist but doesn’t care enough to identify with the label or something else altogether. He’s shitty either way.
It might suggest that you want some sort of consistency from people. They believe X, so how could that be squared with their belief in Y? If it can, and if they indeed support one another quite well, that suggests people who believe not-X or not-Y are wrong.
To answer your questions directly, yes and no. But it is worthwhile that people believe the truth, even if that isn’t the only worthwhile thing to do.
The thing about being an atheist is that, eventually, you’re still left with the problem of being yourself. If you come to atheism from Ayn Rand, you’re not going to be the same sort of atheist who comes to it from a social justice perspective. If you come from un-examined privilege, acknowledging that gods don’t exist is unlikely to make you examine your privilege.
I’m an atheist because I’m a feminist. So, when you get past the atheist thing and I’m back to being myself, I’m a left-wing, pinko, socialist, pro-equality, pro-human rights, pro-legalized marijuana, Volvo-driving, latte-drinking feminist who loves to study history. Atheism is just part of that package for me; no more or less important than other parts. Certainly, atheism is not more important than fairness and justice to me.
As a result, I’m unlikely to ever have anything in common with Penn Jillette other than the strictest definition of atheism. Although, after hearing Stephen Fry’s story about how Jillette railed against monarchy while praising the American rejection of the same and then, 30 seconds later, was humbly and adoringly prostrating himself before the Elizabeth II in a receiving line, I suspect Jillette is a weak-minded hypocrite and I trust his position on atheism as far as I trust his position on monarchies.
Seven of Mine @64:
Dennett tried to promote the idea with his op ed in the NYT. Maybe he went off it later if he figured out how utterly tin-eared it was!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/the-bright-stuff.html
As for Dawkins, I just saw this latest twittery from him and I just want to SCREAM at the smug, patronising scumbag. How Fucking Dare he speak so of someone who’s done so much and nearly lost her life for it?
I loathe that man. Words fail to describe how I loathe him.
2kittehs @67, I agree. Dawkins went so far over the line with that tweet he was halfway around the planet. One might almost think he was jealous of Malala.
I was a secular humanist long before I admitted my atheism even to myself, and I’m about ready to go back to identifying strictly as secular humanist again. If the people in that poster, and the people who created it, are the public face of atheism, well, then, include me out.
@ 2kittehs
Ah, maybe I’m remembering Sam Harris not liking it. I remember one of them not being cool with it. Fair enough.
Also, I saw the tweet about Malala. Apart from how shitty it is to presume to speak for her it’s spectacular in how widely and in how many ways it misses the point. The reason people point out that Malala is religious is because she says her religion is what inspires her to do what she does which exposes the bigotry in Dawkins’ and Harris’s anti-Islam attitudes. He’s erasing Malala in service of justifying his own bigotry against people who believe as she does. It’s vile.
2kittehs, religious people are wrong. Get over it. I don’t know the context of the quote, but on the face of it that sounds supportive and optimistic and respectful of what she’s trying to accomplish, not speaking badly of her. I was an atheist before 17, but it was still a process getting rid of all of the baggage I didn’t realize it had been carrying — education certainly does make a difference too. Maybe you don’t want to hear that as a theist, but I don’t give a fuck.
consciousness razor, it’s Dawkins patronising attitude that’s pissing me off, his smugness in talking about it. I don’t care whether Malala is atheist, theist or anything in between. That’s her business. I’m not having a go at atheism or atheists, it’s him. BTW I’m not theist, more deist, and I don’t have a brief for religion, so there’s no need to talk as if I do, or get hostile to me (which is how I read your comment: apologies if I misread it).
Seven of Mine – hear, hear, you put it much more eloquently than I could.
The question does not mean that only atheists shouldn’t be misanthropes. It’s similar to “as an atheist, why should you discriminate against gay people?” or “as an atheist, why should you pray for someone’s soul?”. It’s meant to sort out beliefs that rely on a theistic framework, which theists have no problem with because, well, they’re theists.
QFT.
Keep waiting, Dawkins. I’m sure she’ll love to join your shitty club and be treated like a second class citizen all over again!
Seven of Mine – you’re right, it looks like Harris wasn’t interested, from what little I’ve found. Hitchens called it a”cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called ‘brights.'” He nailed it that time!
Unless I’m supposed to read something other than your unsourced Dawkins tweet, he’s defending her, for fuck’s sake. He’s not supposed to do that? He thinks religions are false — is he not allowed to account of those facts at all (because it’s supposedly “patronizing”), even while saying something supportive?
Isn’t that exactly the attitude people here are saying they support: that we should “ally” ourselves with “liberal believers” on certain topics, despite the fact that they’re wrong as far as their religious beliefs go? And that people have the potential to change for the better? What the fuck is there to loathe here, especially when it’s Dawkins and there are so many more loathsome things about him?
So you think something with a mind (or which is simply a mind) created the world, but it doesn’t do anything now? That’s a religious belief, like it or not. You don’t want to make a case, that’s fine. But it would help to understand where you’re coming from.
@69 Seven of Mine
But that’s the thing, that’s clearly bullshit…I support her efforts and think what she is doing is remarkable and extremely important. However, i have no problem saying that she is deriving all those wonderful attitudes from an entirely wrong source. What she is doing is good on its own merits. Her claiming that she derives inspiration from her religion to do those good things is meaningless.
And i have to say, if that were trully the case, if her attitudes derived exclusively from her interpretation of her religion and not from and understanding that they are valid in and on themselves (which i’m pretty sure is not the case at all), then her possitions would be devalued and she’d be right merely by coincidence…Her religion is certainly not a valid base on which to substantiate her correct ideas.
I think that Jafafa Hots @37 is on the right track:
Just to be an atheist at all means that one must have space to think critically about religion. Of course, it may be possible to come to the conclusion of atheism in a totalitarian, theocratic society, but such people will be few and far between and they won’t be allowed to talk about this conclusion with anyone else. In fact, they wouldn’t be able to write it down for future generations, so such non-believers could possibly end up being the last non-believers.
They would still have been right. But so what?
The ability to share the conclusion of atheism, and the processes used to reach said conclusion, require particular social and political conditions. Creating, expanding, and perpetuating those conditions are forms of intervention in society. And successful intervention of this kind is less difficult when working in concert with others than by working alone.
Acting in the public sphere to secure freedom of conscience, freedom of political communication, freedom to criticize authority, and freedom to associate with like-minded peers is itself a form of activism for social justice.
If the idea of atheism is to become normalized across a society, it has to reach a significant portion of that society. This means that it will expand within parts of that society where it was not previously common. If the “gospel” of atheism is to spread, it cannot remain the sole province of any particular group that is defined by social characteristics other than religion.
Normalizing freedom of communication and association with regards to atheism also normalizes such liberties regarding other kinds of social organization. This is especially true as more people realize that the old ways are not inevitable diktats of angry sky monsters, and that these ways were human inventions protected by spurious claims of divine command. Then, seeing that social and political standards are set by other “mere” humans, some will start to question these other rules and suggest what they see as better arrangements. This isn’t an inevitable consequence of atheism, but it should not be surprising.
Of course, many of the people who argue for hermit atheism will just assume these freedoms since that is what they are used to. Part of their assumption is because they live in polities where these rights are protected, but another part is because they often have high enough social standing to get away with being outside the norm.
Seven of Mine @33,
I think this works both ways with them. When the status quo is (at least somewhat) amenable to open identification as atheists, it’s just the Way Things Are. They take their freedom for granted, which is often not a good idea, especially when it turns into complacency about the situation for people just like them who experience different social situations. The ability to live as an atheist is more secure when more people are able to participate in defending it.
consciousness razor@77,
Dawkins’ tweet certainly comes across as condescending to me. Why not “Yes, she’s religious, but what she’s done and is doing is great, and I admire her courage.” It’s also likely that she can do much more good as a Muslim, than she would as an atheist.
Why not? Sounds nearly the same to me, with different words.
That may be the case, but it’s more than a little condescending to treat her like a means to an end.
“CrackityJones” is one of Rich Sanderson’s new IDs, right? He’s in comments at Luciano’s article, leaving little turds of lies and rumors lying around.
For years, PZ has railed about those he calls “dictionary atheists” — those who believe the definition stops at a lack of belief. The problem is, he continually assumes in the way he writes about it that “dictionary atheists” stop there because they don’t want to take on responsibility for social concerns. The question should be, however, what is the most *accurate* definition of atheism, and no matter how much PZ wishes otherwise, “lack of belief” and nothing more will *always* be the most accurate. To assert otherwise is to not actually value the accuracy and truth that virtually all atheists (PZ included) claim is critically important.
So, does that mean I *don’t* care about social justice, or that I shirk such responsibility and concerns? Hardly. I’m quite active in social justice awareness and activism. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that atheism requires it. There is a distinction between the *logical* implications of atheism and the *ethical* ones. PZ repeatedly and deliberately blurs that line, as in this very post. I’m all for raising awareness on — and acting accordingly based upon — those ethical implications, but to pretend they are necessitated by atheism (rather than informed by it) is intellectual dishonesty.
The unfortunate truth is that we must accept that atheism has a meaning broad enough to cover Humanism & Ethical Culture on one end, and Ayn Rand on the other. Anything else is lying to ourselves. The angle that includes caring about others, and about social justice concerns such as feminism and minority representation, *because* of our atheism and how it has informed our ethics is important and worthy of pushing forward, but not an intrinsic quality of atheism itself nor does it have the capacity to magically become one.
In the end, for all it failed to do (mostly because it was trying to replicate what Humanism and Ethical Culture already represented), Atheism+ had the right understanding. It is atheism *plus* those other factors, and the plus is important because shoehorning them into the term otherwise is dishonest. I believe the reason A+ largely went nowhere (how often do you even hear the term any more?) was because it was more about de-stigmatizing the term “atheist” than about anything else, but at least the term wasn’t trying to pretend that atheism wasn’t atheism when the “plus” was removed…
consciousness razor@81,
Then you have a tin ear.
Two tin ears.
Without considering the consequences of one’s atheism, the claim isn’t accurate, just a pedantic excuse not the look at the meaning of what you say, and the consequences thereof. Your argument is still bullshit.
Neither does anybody else. Try again, this time with accurate representations of yoru interlocutors’ positions.
*whoosh!!*
That was the point flying over Ryan Jean’s head @83.
We’re not supposed to believe he thinks education is great, that fighting for it is admirable and takes courage? That meaning might not be explicit, as it is in your rendition, but it’s still palpably there in the background. Indeed, you’d have to read a lot of patent absurdities into it to get something else. But that’s me actually using my ear, not just claiming that I have one and only listening to my own biases (which are against Dawkins as much as anyone).
I was telling you why it’s irrelevant, even if it’s true. If it is somehow relevant to any point you made or would like to make, I must have missed it.
Consciousness razor:
The difference between:
and
is that the first quote presumes to know what Yousafzai will believe (or not believe) as an adult and the second quote compliments her courage while acknowledging her religion, without adding the smug assertion that the speaker knows her mind better than Yousafzai does.
Can you really not see the difference or are you just being difficult? They are different words with different meanings arranged in a different way.
@85 “Without considering the consequences of one’s atheism, the claim isn’t accurate, just a pedantic excuse not the look at the meaning of what you say, and the consequences thereof. Your argument is still bullshit.”
Argument from consequences is a fallacy. There is literally nothing about a lack of belief that *necessitates* anything based on the consequences. That said, I strongly believe as an *ethical* matter in doing so, and for advocating the use of everything — *including* one’s atheism — to inform that ethical stance. And my public record on that speaks for itself. As long as the people here and the repulsive Ayn Rand can all accurately be considered atheist, though (and they can), we *must* be open to the fact that atheism does not require anything more. People who *don’t* consider the implications, and *don’t* consider the ethics aren’t people I’d want to be around, but they aren’t technically doing atheism wrong, they’re doing ethics wrong…
@86 “Neither does anybody else. Try again, this time with accurate representations…”
Bull. PZ alone has made numerous posts on the subject where he pins social justice as tantamount to a requirement of atheism, and considering the idea that it’s not as practically a heresy. Endless streams of comments here and elsewhere have done the same. And many have held open contempt for those that take the view *only* that it is not a requirement of atheism but of ethics.
I have absolutely no love or respect for those atheists that view women as scum, or non-whites as scum, or any form of justice warriors as scum. But the repeated bleat *is* that they are doing *atheism* wrong rather than pointing out that they are just nasty people period that should be condemned on other grounds. I stay out of most of this because of the nastiness that often results, and it is almost impossible to keep up with the amount of comments that can happen on even one of PZ’s threads, but I dislike the dishonest framing and the attempt at de-facto definition shifting that occurs on this topic — in part because it *is* dishonest, in part because it weakens the attacks that can be made against those *against* social justice, and in part because it reminds me far too much of the *holier than thou* mentality that I hoped I was rid of when I left religion.
Ryan Jean @90:
I think you’re missing the fact that people have said there *ought* to (or should) be implications to atheism.
The assumption that Malala will eventually renounce religion is the part that’s insulting to her. Yes, she’s religious, Dawkins says, but eventually she’ll get over it. Well, what if she doesn’t? What if she remains a Muslim her entire life? It doesn’t mean her accomplishments are somehow worth less. Why can’t Dawkins just appreciate the fact that someone is fighting for an ideal he supposedly cherishes, that is, universal education for girls as well as boys, without pretending to know the eventual outcome of Malala’s own intellectual development and internal questioning? Oh, right, because then he couldn’t insinuate something about how own superiority for seeing through all the religious stuff. That he can’t figure out how to compliment her without also stuffing up his own already overstuffed ego is why he should shut the fuck up about it.
Science must therefore encompass both Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham, who both claim to be scientists. Need I note that while Dawkins does not have a Ph.D., Ham has four, and therefore meets all the essential requirements for being a scientist?
It’s not as if “scientist” has any deeper meanings, you know.
No, it doesn’t. It makes a prediction (one I doubt is right) that if his audience gives her time — and her education works as intended to instill beliefs that are true and good and useful, and she gets more experiences that a young person doesn’t often have — she could change her mind. He apparently thinks that’s likely, or it wouldn’t be saying much of anything, but that’s not a statement of knowledge.
Knowing her mind (as it is now?) is I guess a different question, but whether she’s really a believer or not now isn’t the only thing that determines whether she will or won’t be one in the future.
It’s good politics to encourage atheists who are interested in social justice and other political issues to engage in politics in their community, alongside religious folk. One of the biggest reasons that people convert to a religion is because they’re exposed to a person and a community who have something that they want to have and be a part of as well. Having aspirational atheists is nothing but good in that regard.
Not so sure that the atheist organizations should actually endorse an agenda beyond “we do not tolerate any discrimination along the lines of race, gender, class, etc” and the usual church-and-state stuff. Not all of us have the luxury of being choosy with our allies on church-and-state issues.
Ryan Jean, #90
Tantamount to a requirement? Practically a heresy? This is you misrepresenting your interlocutors’ positions again, with weaselly qualifying words to escape responsibility for doing so. Tantamount to a requirement = not actually a requirement. Practically a heresy = not actually a heresy.
Since “many” have this view then I trust that no less than 2 quotes indicating precisely this–that the requirement you speak of is endemic to atheism alone and not atheism in combination with things like ethics, empathy, and critical reasoning–will be shortly forthcoming.
Whoops. Haven’t you heard that the “but” in any formulation of this sort nearly always completely negates whatever came before it? If you can rephrase a thought similar to this with “and” in place of “but”, then you’re probably on solid ground. If not, then it’s highly possible that your lack of love for those who treat women and racial minorities as scum isn’t quite as all-encompassing as you claim.
Fixed that for you. I understand that it can be difficult sometimes to differentiate “atheism” the concept from “atheism” the movement. Now you know. There’s no need to get het up about SJWs claiming that bigoted assholes are doing “atheism the concept” wrong, because they’re not. They’re claiming that the bigoted assholes are doing “atheism the movement” wrong.
And also because apparently you’re not sharp enough to understand what’s actually being said…
If only YOUR critique were honest, this paragraph might have some teeth.
TL:DR. Sorry, had to skim a lot of the latest comments:::
Atheism is an ASPECT of a person’s personality, not a definition of one’s personality. Atheism is not a religion itself. To treat is as the definition of a personality, is to lump atheism in with theism: as a religion of its own. Atheism is NOT “belief that God does not exist”, but “without belief that God DOES exist.” Only in this case does the “dictionary” help explain what atheism stand for. The dictionary is not the absolute, sole meaning of the word, just literates the difference between the two definitions: the right one and the wrong one. To assume that “he’s an atheist”, gives a complete summary of that guy’s personality is a huge mistake. “Atheist” is just one of the aspects in the long list that gives a better summary of that guys personality. THAT is what I find most frustrating about being an atheist. All those theists who take “atheism” as “just another religion”. EG: theist ask atheist: “Why do you believe God does not exist?” or “Prove God does not exist!” Without ever realizing that neither question is applicable to my Atheism.
Unexamined privilege, illustrated.
“The usual church-and-state stuff”–meaning what? Ridding courthouses of the Ten Commandments? Getting “Festivus” displays on the town square during holiday season?
I’d rather not have an atheist movement if that’s all it’s going to be good for. Such a movement would do nothing more than waste the time of good people whose efforts and intelligence could be better applied to addressing more urgent problems (USA-specific here), such as racial disparities in primary education, or the growing popularity of abortion restrictions.
“…who both claim to be scientists…”
If this *were* about claims, that would hold water. As long as it is about definitions, though, no dice. It is another example of dishonest framing, and I wonder about those who that line would work on.
Someone either fits the definition or they don’t. Nasty people can and do fit the definition of atheist. Nasty opinions about other people are not prohibited by being an atheist, no matter how revolting they may be to the more ethically minded of us. They are still nasty, yes, but they do not violate what it fundamentally means to be one.
But does the number of degrees, or the type of them, represent what it is to fit the definition of a scientist, or as you put it, meeting “the essential requirements for being a scientist”? I highly doubt you believe that line for a second, PZ. Nor will you find any accepted definition that bases itself on such. (Of course, it’s also inaccurate; Ham has two doctorates and they are both honorary from religious schools; Dawkins has at least one non-honorary doctorate in a scientific field, and several honorary ones.) I think we can all agree that one of those two generally abides by the principles of science in advancing human knowledge, while the other does not.
I’m both. (I also believe other gods, besides this “God” character, don’t exist.) Since I’m NOT an atheist to you…. Nah, fuck it. Why are your comments always so full of garbled, irrelevant bullshit?
*snicker*, considering your inane response are dishonest attempts at framing.
Oh my. Science has principles now, which can be generally abided…!!! Since when were we not simply talking about a word’s definitions but something about … well… reality?
Of course, if you ask me and you ask a Ham-follower, all of us are not actually going to agree on this exact point….
@100, consciousness razor asked: “Why are your comments always so full of garbled, irrelevant bullshit?”
Because I am, also (full of garbled, irrelevant bullshit), and I just gotta display it to this oh so tolerant horde. Sorry, I just like to write my erroneous thoughts (no matter how garbled and irrelevant) so my errors can be pointed out to me.
azhael @ 78
The point isn’t whether she’s right or not about getting her inspiration from her religion. Very few people do as evidenced by the fact that they pick and choose which parts of their holy books to actually live by. The point is that people like Dawkins and Harris love to play up how uniformly awful Islam is and love to grossly overstate how sympathetic the average Muslim is to the fundamentalists who do things like shoot girls in the face for getting an education (see the videos of Sam Harris’ argument with Ben Affleck). They work very hard to erase people like Malala who are fighting against those things from the inside. It ruins the narrative of them being the brave heroes; the only ones with the courage to speak the uncomfortable truth that everyone else shies away from in their paranoid political correctness.
So then someone like Dawkins turns around and implies that Malala will surely give up her religion if given time and it’s like he can’t even acknowledge her without simultaneously trying to minimize the fact that she’s Muslim. She’s not a True Muslim, she’s just too young to know better.
“Whoops. Haven’t you heard that the “but” in any formulation of this sort nearly always completely negates whatever came before it? If you can rephrase a thought similar to this with “and” in place of “but”, then you’re probably on solid ground. If not, then it’s highly possible that your lack of love for those who treat women and racial minorities as scum isn’t quite as all-encompassing as you claim.”
Nice try, but no. We’re not all professional wordsmiths when faced with people who will pick apart anything you say thinking they have a “gotcha” in there. Expecting everyone to phrase everything they ever write as if it’s a debate isn’t realistic. Or I could be wrong, and you could view the William Lane Craig method of winning by debate rather than refutation to be a viable model…
But to the substance, let’s try this another way. Let’s say that Dawkins put out another “Dear Muslima” type of comment. Would a response of “The barbarism inflicted on women in the Islamic world is horrible and we need to act, *but* that also doesn’t automatically excuse treating women poorly here just because it’s nowhere near as bad” be somehow incorrect? You could argue that it’s bad wording, and you have a case, yet that does not excuse ignoring the point that was still made. The people who *did* make comments like that, in outrage of “dear Muslima”, are still correct in the root point. Instead, that’s exactly what you did, ignored the point of the sentence to go on about word choice, and made a sly comment insinuating that somehow I’m not sincere about that part.
And that’s what it really comes down to. Actively disliking and fighting the social justice haters, and being actively supportive of social justice efforts, does *not* change the fact that we should be honest about what means what.
“Fixed that for you. I understand that it can be difficult sometimes to differentiate “atheism” the concept from “atheism” the movement. Now you know. There’s no need to get het up about SJWs claiming that bigoted assholes are doing “atheism the concept” wrong, because they’re not. They’re claiming that the bigoted assholes are doing “atheism the movement” wrong.”
I routinely see both. And no, I’m not even remotely kidding or misstating.
To be very blunt: If I *only* saw the latter, I wouldn’t have commented because I wouldn’t have disagreed. I think having a SJ angle to the movement is a good thing, and so is jettisoning those who cannot abide by social justice standards. That effectively means a splintering off, though I don’t see the splinter having much success (and even when they do, for example in the case of Justin Vacula, it is primarily by hiding the more revolting aspects, even if only when the news cameras are rolling).
This is why I sympathized with the ill-fated A+. I think they were on to something, by pointing out that there are reasons — not inherent in atheism but certainly meaningfully informed by considerations of it — to focus on SJ without pretending that atheism is fundamentally more. They were open not just about striving for more (as I believe the SJ side of atheism-the-movement current is too), but about explaining how they got there without pretending it is or should be a given. In essence, A+ wasn’t trying to act like it had exclusive domain of the word.
I understand you draw the sharp distinction between the concept and the movement. That is not universal (especially in the public, which we *do* have to openly concern ourselves with). If it were, we wouldn’t be discussing this now. I draw such a distinction, too, but as long as the movement routinely tries to co-opt the term in its entirety it is going to have a problem with elements that see the co-option as not drawing such a distinction (my view), as well as with elements that reject the SJ angle (not my view).
Still waiting on quotes from those “many” people who “routinely” do this Bad Thing of conflating atheist activism with just being and atheist and telling atheists who aren’t interested in social justice that they’re doing atheism the concept wrong, not atheist activism, Ryan Jean.
To Ryan Jean’s #105:
“And” works just as well as “but” in the example you have. In fact it works fine in your original comment, to which I was responding. My point stands. Consider replacing “but” with “and” in the future to avoid the lack of clarity which you decry.
Ryan Jean @ 107
Tell that to all of the people who completely lost their shit over it. I’m not active there anymore but I modded there for some time and we had a steady stream of trolls telling us we had no business existing and using the same bullshit arguments as you are.
The 1980s are calling you, they want to thank you for rehashing the bad arguments of that decade.
Seriously, I remember a time when that was all the rage in atheist circles: hair-splitting over the order of the words in the definition. Endless thousands of words were lined up and marched forward on IRC and Usenet to promote this or that precise definition of the meaning of atheism, hundreds of atheists crowed in triumph as they bludgeoned those foolish theists for using the wrong order of words.
It was stupid. It’s still stupid. Who the fuck cares? You don’t believe god exists, you believe that god doesn’t exist. Jebus. Get me out of here.
Watch yourself. You just triggered a whole lot of memories of really dreadful circle-jerks on alt.atheism.
@105 Ryan Jean
“Wrong” right back at ya.
The common “I’m not but …” construction is a distancing tactic designed to deflect criticism by couching one’s true beliefs behind a smokescreen. That’s how the cliche “everything after the ‘but’ is bullshit” came into being.
For example, “I’m not a racist, but black people sure like to eat a lot of watermelon, don’t they?” Or, “I’m not a sexist, but I wish women would just smile at me on the street once in a while.” Take out the distancing phrase, and what you’re left with are openly racist and sexist statements.
In your counter-example, the conjunction “and” could be substitute for the “but” with no loss in meaning. “Muslim countries are sexist AND that doesn’t excuse sexism in the west”.
In my examples, you can’t substitute the “but” with “and” and retain the desired distancing effect. “I’m not a racist AND black people sure like to eat watermelon…”
So, your tactic of attempting to distance yourself from what apparently are your true beliefs while openly expressing them is as transparent as glass.
State your beliefs without the smokescreen. At least you’ll get points for honesty. But you’ll be outed for fuckwittery…so expect that.
Will somebody please help me fill in the blank regarding the billboard failure above?
Penn Jillette, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Maher, Lawrence Krauss, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, ___________, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I can’t place the pretend-pugilist, and can’t figure why the anonymous “artist” left out Michael Shermer, Robert Heinlein, and Ayn Rand.
Pierce R. Butler @ 114
It’s Ricky Gervais
I can’t even figure out why Gervais is in there. There are plenty of openly atheist celebrities. Why him?
“Tell that to all of the people who completely lost their shit over it. I’m not active there anymore but I modded there for some time and we had a steady stream of trolls telling us we had no business existing and using the same bullshit arguments as you are.”
If you look back at comments I made at the time, you’ll see that I considered those wrong. Yes, I know that’s little to no consolation on the issue now, but I do at least stand by my history. I genuinely believe that A+ was better in part *because* it didn’t try to own the word. Despite the fact that I describe myself more often as a Humanist than an atheist, I lamented the dying of A+ as a movement because I saw it as Humanism for those who identify as atheist *first* (for whatever reason they may have).
There is a nasty contingent within atheism that I do not and cannot support. That element wants actively to *fight* social justice. I think we can all agree on that. To the extent they battled A+, it was not because A+ had no business existing (that was just a smear claim they could lob), but because they were nasty people who lamented that anyone would fight for social justice (and thus against them) from what they considered *their* side. It was tribalism, and they were trying to own the word “atheist.” That is, in the end, very much what I see going on here: a battle from *both* sides for the true claim to the name. The anti-SJ side fought for exclusive rights, and now the pro-SJ side is largely trying to do the same. And yes, I know some disagree that this is a battle line over a name, but it really does come across as such, especially *outside* the atheist community (one battle in a larger war, but a battle none the less). My stance is simply that neither side has legitimate claim, though on any other aspect I will soundly side with the Social Justice crowd.
Seven… @ # 115 – Thanks!
All I know of Ricky G comes from comments about him at FtB – enough to motivate me to not go look for more.
Thank you, PZ:
That, to me, is the heart of the matter. I had some hope for the “new” atheism, because it appeared to not only be informed by science, but to arise from the same ethical commitments as does science. As PZ says, atheism entails a responsibility to the whole of humanity; but when the atheism has been inspired by science, that responsibility is prior to the atheism itself. The scientific community is far from perfect in this regard, but it is generally acknowledged that diversity and inclusiveness, like truth-telling, are necessary goals if we are to continue to do science.
Some atheists do seem to simply lack a belief in gods, and while they may accept science as a useful collection of facts, they see it as ethically neutral (or barren), and as having no bearing on the question of gods. Ethics, in this view, is apparently an add-on, as in “Atheism+”, or humanism. (I had some correspondence about this years ago with Paul Kurtz. We disagreed.) But for me, atheism is inseparable from my understanding of science, which is itself a humane ethical communal endeavor that, day by day, through both its successes and failures, its strengths and weaknesses, continues to demonstrate (almost as a side effect, but crucially) the lack of fruitfulness of the god hypothesis.
I am happy that those atheists who “lack a belief in gods” can find some list of free-floating ethical concerns to “add on” to both science and atheism; but for me, it is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. I will have to continue to disagree.
Again, Ryan Jean, you have assertions but no evidence. Any atheist MOVEMENT is a social justice affair. “Social justice warriors” are therefore correct to point out that people who want an atheist MOVEMENT but disdain social justice are hypocrites who should be disregarded because their views will ensure that the atheist MOVEMENT lacks relevancy to the lives of most atheists who actually could use a movement that fights for their interests and rights.
Seven of Mine @110
The amount of obnoxious foreign raiders has really decreased since you were active, which is nice. Come on back sometime, I’m qmartindale over there.
SallyStrange @ 109, and Kevin Kehres @ 113:
Here’s the thing: there’s no edit mechanism. I can’t go back and change the words after the fact. It *was* poor wording on my part. It’s also true that you can’t be a great writer all the time, and I’m probably not so any more than a fraction of it (if that). Having people who will deliberately pick apart your words to suss out alleged intents and meanings that are not actually there doesn’t help.
So, when SallyStrange uses a poor word choice to make an insinuation about me, one that I would contend is *not* supported except by that poor word choice and that I absolutely know is *not* how I think on the matter, and then proceeds further to use that to avoid the part after, that is a debate tactic to dismiss the comment after rather than an attempt to seriously address the comment after.
But since it seems to mean so much to you, I will be more specific:
“I have absolutely no love or respect for those atheists that view women as scum, or non-whites as scum, or any form of justice warriors as scum. I am active in the fight FOR social justice, period, and those individuals are therefore an enemy. That it is a common line of those anti-SJ individuals, however, does not make the claim incorrect that
Butthe repeated bleat *is* that they are doing *atheism* wrong rather than pointing out that they are just nasty people period that should be condemned on other grounds.”In other words, you’re saying it’s wrong to say that bigoted atheists are doing atheism wrong. Why do you think that’s a point worth discussing?
I face-palmed so hard that I combined phrenology and palmistry.
That’s “phrenotherapy” — when you try to alter your mind by adjusting the bumps on your skull. ;)
Apparently, Ryan Jean is planning on publishing a dictionary. That is the only justification I can see for being so worked up over the definition of a single word.
I don’t see why anybody would bother to post a disagreement with PZ’s post. If you *are* a dictionary atheist,, you don’t give a damn about other people, so why should you care if they agree that you are an atheist or not? They only thing I can think of is that deep down you do feel that people should try to help each other, but you don’t want the responsibility and allowing such a conjoining of social justice to atheism makes you feel ashamed.
@104 Seven of Mine
I understand your point now, and agree with it. Thank you.
qwintz #123:
Because Ryan Jean sees “many” people “routinely” saying that bigoted atheists are doing atheism wrong. He understands and agrees that it’s correct to say that bigoted atheists are doing atheist activism wrong, or that they’re doing having an atheist movement wrong, but he wants everyone to be really, really clear that bigoted atheists are still atheists.
It’s not clear exactly who he’s railing against, but he’s very emphatic about that point. One could only wish that he’d take the logical next step of finding those people who are doing the thing that he wishes people wouldn’t do, and tell them not to do it.
“In other words, you’re saying it’s wrong to say that bigoted atheists are doing atheism wrong.”
I’m not fond of there *being* bigoted atheists, but since the gate for entry is disbelief, I can’t find something about that which can or should preclude a bigot, or an anti-SJ warrior, or just some smarmy, pretentious libertarian asshole from it. I take a lot of heat for that, (and I want to be clear here) and I don’t think it’s because it’s correct or not (I think a good chunk accept that at a certain granularity of definitions, it is correct) but because many assume that I therefore must *agree*, at least in some hold-out smidge of my being, with the bigot, the anti-SJ warrior, and so on about something other than the definition. I emphatically do not.
I think it is important to try to reach/reform those people if possible. I think that a good number will not change, and only the passing of generations will help. I think that proactive pro-SJ movements of all kinds make a difference in shifting the conversation to justice, and I think that’s a good thing.
“Why do you think that’s a point worth discussing?”
Because I believe that being completely honest on this is the appropriate way to move forward *as* a social-justice movement. A+, however it is faring today, had that in that they were able to come forward with (more or less) a manifesto, explaining what they were and weren’t more clearly for those outside atheism that we will need to partner with to make real change, and having a more thought-out response for those on the outside to digest about the anti-SJ atheists than the current iteration of atheist activism seems to.
Also because I see being clear about what atheism is and is not for all, to the point of being clear that a social movement represents an aspirational voice within a subset of atheists that is not going to translate to all, as part of the battle over the religious approaches to atheism. We constantly get accused of being a form of religion in itself, and being clear about where the atheism as a definition stops and where the aspirational component to be better starts helps address that.
Also because I view the attempted co-opting of the name as a reflex action to the anti-SJ warriors having done the same. And I don’t think anything at all useful comes out of that.
And yes, also because I am a pedant. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with being one, either. I do acknowledge that pedantry is not always the most tactful response, but given the prior points (and I did place them in descending order of importance for me) I don’t see the lack of tact to be a major concern on this.
Tony @17
I don’t disagree “that atheism *ought* to entail more”. It does and it is called secular humanism. That was the point I was trying to make.
It also seems to be a part of the “movement” to re-create the wheel.
But the more the merrier!!
Ryan Jean #122:
Interesting. Have I indeed ignored the part that came after? What is that part that came after? Oh hey, you helpfully reworded your comment in the interest of clarity.
Or, maybe not clarity, but something more akin to spite.
That wasn’t so fucking hard, now was it? Next time you could try doing it without the petulance.
And, let’s note: I have not at all ignored the part that came after. It should be pretty clear by now that I agree with you overall. I am merely contesting your assertion that “many” people “routinely” do the thing you think they shouldn’t do. I contest that we are your target audience for that message. I am skeptical that there really is much of a target audience, but if you think it’s a message that needs to get out there, go for it. It would be cool if you could actually identify the people who need to hear it, though.
@0, PZ Myers
I think there’s a category error in there.
The set of atheists intersects “your people”; possibly even with the latter completely contained in the former. However, there’s also a lot of atheists who are PUAs, MRAs, Randroids, and other assorted borderline sociopaths — who, despite how you may come across when in a particularly bad mood over particularly egregious stupidities, generally do not seem to be “your people”. So, while it may be that all of “your people” are atheists, not all atheists are “your people”.
My own Humean leanings leave me inclined to suggest that atheism addresses a particular sort of “is” question — whether or not there is a God. However, you don’t merely say “no, there isn’t”; you also have some ideas on “ought” questions; EG, that “hero-worshipping authoritarianism” is a “bad” thing. (I happen to agree on that.)
However, I’m personally in favor keeping the terminology distinction the “dictionary atheists” emphasize, as a means of avoiding equivocation fallacies. Sure, the social movement would seem to benefit from making explicit that its members also pursue ” being a decent human being who wants to build functional, useful communities”. However, I’d consider that to be more accurately characterized with a taxonomic modifier like “social justice atheism”, to distinguish it from other varieties like “Randite atheism”, who instead prefer to pursue being two-legged jackasses indifferent to communities. It seems that keeping the taxonomy language precise would make it harder for the sociopath variety of atheist to use equivocation to bypass criticism.
@0, PZ Myers
I’d conjecture this distinction between types of atheists may have a link to “hero-worshipping authoritarianism”, in that it seems likely (although I lack hard data to support the claim) that higher tendency to hero-worship would be positively correlated with higher Social Dominance Orientation; and that higher Social Dominance Orientation seems likely negatively correlated to the “social justice” Atheism.
“If you *are* a dictionary atheist,, you don’t give a damn about other people, so why should you care if they agree that you are an atheist or not?”
Wrong. I *do* care. You’re making the faulty assumption that I’m *against* social justice because I’m for a particular form of accuracy in terms that you don’t agree on. And I do consider atheism to inform my ethics on this, though it is not something I assume is automatic about atheism.
“They only thing I can think of is that deep down you do feel that people should try to help each other, but you don’t want the responsibility and allowing such a conjoining of social justice to atheism makes you feel ashamed.”
“One could only wish that he’d take the logical next step of finding those people who are doing the thing that he wishes people wouldn’t do, and tell them not to do it.”
Considering that i *am* involved in these issues, and *do* actively work for pro-SJ issues, and *do* “take the next logical step” in being vocal on the matter, it would seem that you are really committed to finding a way to paint me, if not as anti-SJ directly, then certainly not pro.
“He understands and agrees that it’s correct to say that bigoted atheists are doing atheist activism wrong, or that they’re doing having an atheist movement wrong…”
I understand that the atheist activism and atheist movement as it is currently being done is pro-SJ activism that — at least outwardly — tries to speak for all atheists, and that when the anti-SJ atheists speak up and say “no, they don’t speak for us” it makes atheism look more foolish, because it makes us look like one movement that can’t get its house in order and can’t deal with our internal divisions. This, unfortunately, provides even more ammunition for the religious to paint us all with, when I believe we actually should be clear and absolute that we are two distinct groups that share *only* that core belief, then we can battle the anti-SJ crowd on their own nastiness rather than letting them make all of us look bad.
No God, no God-given morals. If you call yourself an atheist and still cling to all the baggage, then you’re just a smug idiot who wants to be part of the “smart club” in order to feel superior.
1. Stop lying. All I’ve done it point out that you used bad wording, which you then corrected, and point out that you’re talking to people who aren’t making the error you wish to correct.
2. Seriously though, who are you lecturing? Who specifically is making the error you wish to correct? I’ve asked you four or five times now for specifics on this. You apparently don’t have them, but that isn’t stopping you from lecturing PZ, me, and the other commenters here anyway, as if we WERE the people making the error you wish to correct. This suggests that you think that we are making that error. Either provide evidence that you are actually addressing your correction to the correct target audience–i.e., the people making that error–or move on.
3. Blockquotes. Learn them. Use them.
The dictionary definition of atheism is pointless….it really leaves you with a label on the same level of relevance as “abigfootist”. That’s it. The people who insist that atheism is just the lack of belief in gods and that people who think there are direct consequences that can be derived from the acceptance of a godless universe, don’t realise that they themselves are acting against their own position every time that they attack religion. There is nothing in the dictionary definition of atheism that says you should attack religious beliefs, or use logic and rationality to support the intellectual validity of your atheistic position….NOTHING…. So all those people critisizing religious people, all anti-theists, all rationalists and naturalists are distorting the definition of atheism…
The next time that an atheist critisizes religion, remember, they are creating rifts with their biased agendas that totally have nothing to do with atheism.
Ryan Jean
So, what atheist activism are we talking about? There are several different flavors. That’s one area where a bit more clarity would do a lot to move this discussion forward.
Pretty much any sort of activism on behalf of any group tries to speak for and about all members of that group. This is obviously always a simplification of the concerns and needs of the actual members of that group. This is par for the course, not unique to atheist organizations.
Also, you misunderstood my point. Having organizations and a movement to promote a better quality of life for atheists is inherently a social justice endeavor. It’s changing society and social interactions/expectations, so as to make life less unjust for atheists. That is social justice, whether the current leaders/members of the atheist movement want to admit it or not.
Who are these people who are doing the looking? There are plenty of people out there who look at these “internal divisions” and think, “Ah, good, so the atheist movement ISN’T entirely dominated by privileged straight white men. There are people like me who are atheists and they’re fighting for their right to have their voices heard as atheists in the atheist movement.” Why are you more concerned with catering to the prejudices of the former group of people, rather than the latter?
There’s a fine line between paying an appropriate amount of attention to public perceptions of atheists and the atheist movement, and concern trolling. You’re dancing around on that line. The fact that you continue to evade the question of who is making this mistake that you desperately wish to correct which you assert “makes us look bad” suggests to me that you’re crossing the line into tone trolling. Feel free to correct me if that’s a misperception.
If atheism is just about this non-belief, why can I still hear those people?
If there’s nothing more to it than disbelief, they are like the baby who’s an atheist because they don’t know anything yet.
Seriously, not even “seperation of church and state” follows logically from “I just don’t believe”. Non sequitur. You need something else. Oh, freedom of religion, you say? But taht’s human rights and you need a fucking basis for your human rights, you need an argument. That arguent isn’t contained in “I don’t believe in any deities”.
So either they admit that there’s something more to it or they stuff their fucking pacifiers back into their mouths.
+++
It’s not only fuck condescending, it’s also that stance that does not actually leave any room for a reformed liberal islam. Those atheists basically agree with IS and the Taliban that theirs is the real Islam and that anybody who is a decent human being and a muslim is mistaken about being a muslim. Dawkins et. all will then of course turn around and deem Islam and muslims universally and irredeemably horrible, qed.
To Giliell’s excellent point see http://freethoughtblogs.com/veil/2014/10/10/sam-harris-reinforcing-orientalist-and-wahabbi-narratives/
If we care so much about framing then we need to stop doing this. Wahabbists aren’t doing Islam right is a better frame for progress. Malala is doing Islam right.
Do dictionary Muslims have this same debate? I bet they do, and I bet you can see which side is analogous.
This is why our Black atheist group included “humanists” in our group name (Black Humanists and Non-Believers of Sacramento), because quite simply being an atheist primarily states what you don’t believe in; humanism expresses what you advocate.
Atheism is an odd word, a noun implying some kind of system which is related in some way to theism. It is probably better thought of more like a verb: the harrassment of the secular by the religious. And so naturally leading to our own interest group of atheists organized around dealing with this harrassment. And as with any interest group, not surprisingly we just want the harrassment to stop. It doesn’t occur to most people in interest groups that other groups might be troubled for similar reasons, some of those troublemakers being in their own groups. Atheism+ makes clear that our own problem with the religious won’t go away until all of our fellow atheists stop making trouble for all the other interest groups.
Ryan Cunningham (#4):
Colbert to the rescue.
re PZ@111:
oh dear, I guess I embody the Tull song, “Living In The Past”; I apologize for imposing my definitions as “the Right and Wrong Way”, to define Atheism“. Looking in the mirror, I see that I’m simply expressing my internal definition. My “definitions” is how I justify my atheism, to myself. I’m just so averse to every form of Religion that I have to rephrase my beliefs in an anti-religion form. PZ’s “slap in the face” is what I needed and deserved. Thank you, (everyone) for your tolerance. I’ll try harder to keep from expressing/imposing my definitions on the conversation here (and everywhere else).
You know, some of us tried to make it all clear by setting up a branch of atheism that promoted social justice, letting people make a choice about what issues they wanted to focus on. It’s called Atheism+.
People, many of the same people now freaking out at the idea of making social justice a significant platform within the atheist movement, shit their pants. Not only can’t you discuss social justice within atheism, but if you try to set yourself apart, these certain atheists get all blablabla-cunt-bitch-I’m-gonna-rape-you on the subject.
So no, fuck off anyone who complains: you’ve left us no recourse but to assert a moral obligation for all godless human beings who want to be regarded as respectable contributors to the cause.
Ryan Jean @117:
Oh, gee, the ‘both sides’ bullshit.
3 strikes and yer out!
Please gather your things and exit stage left. You’ve nothing of substance to add to this discussion.
axxyaan @ 62:
It matters how people tend to respond in the real world, yes.
Issues of social justice are very likely to be approached from different angles to different conclusions, based on a person’s religious belief or lack thereof.
This does not make the god excuse any less vacuous, but it does give you some insight as to when and where you might see it, how it comes about, why people might use it, and how to deal with it.
So, does any of the above matter? Because that’s all based on religion (or lack thereof) above and beyond humanity.
If a person’s concept of social justice is influenced by their religion to regard women as chattel, then no, I think they should be inclined towards what – to them – is a social injustice: equal rights for women.
If a person’s concept of social justice is influenced by their religion to regard homosexuality as an abomination, then no, I think they should be inclined towards what – to them – is a social injustice: acceptance of homosexuality.
If a person’s concept of social justice is influenced by their religion to regard atheists as lacking a moral compass due to the lack of a belief in god, then no…
Y’see?
Issues of social justice are influenced – often heavily – by a person’s religious views. Believing that people will view social justice independently of their religion is not only silly, it’s wasteful of time and effort and generally makes you look like a fool.
Convincing religious people that atheists can add important points to a discussion about morality and social justice is only possible if we – as atheists – are able to determine why we feel what we feel about morality and social justice, and are able to explain that in the context of godlessness. I happen to think that’s a worthwhile goal. I can’t accomplish it without acknowledging the difference between atheist perspectives and theist perspectives.
@Tony, #24: Compassionate and emphatic as usual, Tony. I was expecting your patronizing comment.
But then again, I may have had different experiences from yours, and therefore deserve your contempt.
For example, I have never in my life been attacked or isolated for being an atheist.
Being white, male and straight certainly helps, but I have never met another person that was discriminated because atheist.
Far from me to say that anti-godless discrimination does not exist, I still have the impression that there is no comparison between this and the discrimination suffered by LGBTQ people.
Further, all the terms you propose have a far more solidly accepted meaning than the word “atheist”, which, I’d like to remind you, started as a slur for people who, while still believing in gods, acted outside of their rules.
No thanks to you however, (in fact, despite you) I’m coming to agree more and more with PZ.
The more I think about it, the more “atheism is not about X” sounds dishonest.
Even if atheism is just about fighting religion, one still doesn’t have a reason to fight religion.
To answer to “Why do we fight religion?” we need a set of morals.
We can’t fight religion without asking ourselves moral questions, without asking ourselves what is right and what is wrong.
That is, unless atheism is just wankery and entertainment.
You must not live in the USA, or you have a very small circle of people. Which is why atheists must ban together to prevent discrimination.
F.O. @146:
I must not have expressed myself clearly enough, bc I didn’t intend to come across patronizing or contemptuous.
I’m sorry.
I really was asking if you had a problem with how other people label themselves or if it was just an issue with atheism.
Sorry.
What does religion have to do with morality?
Religion is about obedience and giving money to your church.
I think there may be a communication problem.
If someone is a casual atheist, as in “someone who lives their life without gods” and doesn’t spend too much time thinking about it, they likely don’t care what “atheism” means.
As suggested by abb3w, there is plenty of groups that are incidentally atheists but it’s not their main focus and they are not too invested in it.
These are factually atheists, and probably those “dictionary atheists” refer to.
On the other sides, there’s those who see atheism as a primary focus and are highly committed to it: they spend considerable time discussing it and consider it a worth cause.
They cannot escape the fact that atheism has consequences.
I think the debate would benefit from being reframed, starting from the fact that atheism is important for Dictionary Atheists.
The question then is no more “As an atheist, why don’t you care?” but rather “Why being an atheist is so important to you?”
While “I just like to be right and don’t give a shit about social justice” is a legitimate answer, it would be at last a honest one.
I can’t believe people are actually arguing about the validity of being a misanthrope, as if that’s a proud or valid thing to be. What’s even the point of being here, in this discussion, if you don’t give a shit or actively dislike humans as a whole, and don’t have a desire to better things? Why not do something else with your life other than involve yourself in active atheist communities? I don’t get it.
@Tony #148: I really appreciate your apologies. I’m sorry I made unjust assumptions about you.
Indeed I find “atheist” a far less meaningful label than those you mention, and I have no problem with people identifying with those.
BTW, I checked Lyeska’s blog and I think I have a better idea now of where she (and possibly you) come from.
@chigau #149
You can’t fight pretty much anything without asking yourself why are you fighting it.
F.O. @124:
The thing is, a lot of the people who dislike social justice mixing with atheism already mix up their atheism and social justice. As someone pointed out upthread, the pursuit of church/state separation is social justice activism. It’s just SJ activism they approve of. They don’t approve of other forms of social justice mixing with the atheist movement (such as women’s rights).
F.O.
I fight things that are trying to harm me and mine.
Why should that be the case. What is important to them is that nobody else be anybody other than a dictionary atheist. They have the problem, not us. They either need to shut the fuck up, (as part of the problem) or get with the program ( as part of the solution), depending on they feel about social justice.
@Tony, #153, @Nerd of Redhead #155: I agree 100% with you.
The idea is that, by asking “Why is atheism important?” you force them to expose their motives: either they admit that they approve some sort of SJ activism, as Tony points out, either they admit they don’t care and can fuck off.
There is an inconsistency in the Dictionary Atheist position, and that’s where the argument should be: “How do you rationally justify the necessity to fight against religion while at the same time rejecting the necessity to fight for other social issues?”
@153 Tony!
That is exactly it. They have no problem advocating for state-church separation, science education, etc, all while waving an atheist banner, but don’t you there talk about women’s rights or minority issues, atheism has nothing to do with that, atheism is about non-belief and that’s it!!!
It is extremely transparent that they do it because they specifically have a problem with those forms of social justice, they aren’t fooling anyone. Otherwise, everytime Dawkins speaks about evolution, we should hearing about the dictionary atheism hordes.
They know that atheism is about a lot more than just non-belief, and they know that they derive consequences from their atheism, they are simply trying to silence the people who care about things they don’t and since in this case that’s social justice and human rights….fuck them, fuck the lot of them.
consciousness razor@88,
You’re just perversely ignoring the smug condescension obvious in:
.
I think you’d recognise that smug condescension easily enough if it was a theist saying of some young atheist activist:
.
No, you weren’t. Here’s what you said;
Nothing at all there about relevance. You were quite clearly insinuating that I was using Malala as a means to an end. The relevance, since you’re being so unusually dense, is that if Malala does become an atheist, she will then be faced with a difficult dilemma: does she conceal her change in beliefs, or does she announce it and thereby, very probably, severely reduce her ability to do good?
dude, why don’t you just cave in to your desire and start typing in all caps? you know you want to, and it actually would seem far less silly that what you are currently doing to emphasize EVERY other WORD in your SENTENCES.
You could read it that way, I guess.
I think theism is false and that people should not believe in gods. Is there something “smug” or “condescending” about it that I think believers are wrong, that I know something they don’t, that they’re not doing what they ought to be doing? Could be. Could just be stating the facts. Depends on how precious their poor little feelings are, so that the person reading just can’t handle someone believing that they’re actually right about something. You may as well be saying he’s “self-righteous” — yeah, sure he is, because he happens to be right about that. And he’s not dwelling on it, being abusive or offensive about it; instead, he goes straight into expressing his admiration of her despite that. Hardly something to complain about.
Let’s take a look at the flip side you give. A theist saying they have direct access to the creator of the universe’s thoughts on everything, or that we’ll be rewarded/punished in heaven/hell for not believing just as they do, yet they won’t explain to me or anyone else how any of it’s supposedly the case. Just “give me time” and a god will teach me real good how utterly wrong I am. That really does seem awfully smug and condescending to me. But if that’s the sort of picture you’re painting, it’s quite different, isn’t it? If those aren’t the sort of overtones I’m supposed to be hearing, but something more like “education is good, which she’s fighting for (admirably), and it might even be good for her in this specific way” then I do have a hard time imagining the kind of theist you’re imagining.
Do I literally have to say the word “relevance” for it to count? I’m being the dense one?
No, I wasn’t. And I’m sorry you thought I was insinuating that. I should’ve been clearer it was about the implications of that statement (perhaps read with the same lack of charity you’re offering Dawkins). But there wasn’t much to work with in your comment, and I didn’t feel like writing a treatise either.
Yes, and she may choose either way, because difficult or not it’s her thought process and her decision to make. I’ve got no idea what will happen, nor do I know if it would have the negative consequences you’re predicting. Anyway, I still don’t see what that has to do with Dawkins being smug or condescending. Are you saying that she morally should not become an atheist, therefore Dawkins is wrong to imply that (all else being equal) it would be better to be non-religious? If you’re not saying something like that, what am I supposed to take away from it?
Is there something “smug” or “condescending” about it that I think believers are wrong, that I know something they don’t, that they’re not doing what they ought to be doing? – consciousness razor
No, but there’s a lot that’s smug and condescending about what Dawkins said.
Really? The sort of theist I encountered a number of times in my youth, who made clear they thought my atheism was “just youthful rebellion”, and that I’d grow out of it.
Of course I’m not saying she “morally should not” become an atheist, if only because that’s not something you can simply choose to do or not do. I am pointing out that in her case, all else is not equal.
I’ve no doubt that the following may require some explanation, but I know that there are some here who will immediately understand:
Dictionary atheists: not believing in god(s), but acting like they exist.
As a white, middle class, cisgendered, straight male, I attended the #MovingSocialJustice conference (more than can be said of Luciano). I’ve written a blogpost about my experiences which were, indeed, eye=opening. You can read it on the website for the Sunday Assembly-Los Angeles at: http://www.sundayassemblyla.org/we_re_not_in_kansas_anymore_attending_the_moving_social_justice_conference