Next October, the People of Color Beyond Faith Network, Black Skeptics Group, Houston Black Non-Believers, Black Freethinkers, the American Humanist Association and African Americans for Humanism are sponsoring the second Moving Social Justice conference, to be held in Houston, Texas. These are people who are as godless as it gets, and somehow they’re able to recognize that social justice issues can and ought to be front and center in a secular, rational, religion-free community.
I am perpetually baffled by other atheists who think it shouldn’t even be on the map.
I am perpetually baffled by other atheists who think it shouldn’t even be on the map.
Could it have something to do with privilege?
You’re getting things backward: the atheists who don’t want social justice to be put on the map are sectarian supremacists, and sectarian supremacism is intrinsically opposed to social justice. Atheistic sectarian supremacists don’t want to live in a society defined by social justice: they want to live in a society where They are the nobility lording over the “moronic religious rubes“: by asking them to put social justice on the map, you’re pretty much asking them to renounce their greatest ambition, which they will never do willingly.
I am baffled by those who say the being an atheist puts any kind of obligation on me. Sounds like you want to make atheism into just another cult.
tsig:
I am baffled by those who say the being an atheist puts any kind of obligation on me.
Not believing in gods has philosophical ramifications. For one thing, refuting the existence of god(s) implies rejecting all religiously-motivated racism, sexism, and homophobia. Many atheists figure that out and start rejecting many of the causes of inequality. I suppose you could say you’ve rejected religion and come up with your own reasons for why inequality is OK. In which case, show your work. Or, perhaps you’re like a libertarian who says, “I reject authority, therefore I get to do whatever I want” which is certainly an attractive position except it entails ignoring the obvious sexism, inequality, and so forth surrounding all of us.
Saying atheism is like another cult would imply anyone engaged in any philosophical enquiry whatsoever was a cultist. Is that what you think?
Addendum to previous: furthermore, rejecting religion implies rejecting authority by fiat, which means you need to establish your politics based on your own reasoning. That means you’ll eventually have to deal with questions of equality and social good, unless you’re comfortable living under tyranny.
Every so often I encounter libertarian-leaning atheists who say that they reject religion (OK, so far so good…) but accept no implications to atheism above and beyond that. Yet, they also say they favor personal liberty. Well, in order to construct a political theory favoring personal liberty, without any theistic authoritarian structures creeping in, you’ve got a lot of work to do — and creating a theory of libertarian politics that doesn’t touch on “fairness” is really hard. Admittedly, some libertarians adopt the position that their liberty is just assumed you know, like it’s god-given. But no atheist would do that, amirite?
tsig, have you seen / been in discussions with religious apologists? Almost invariably, one of the platitudes put forth by the apologist will be something like “but but how can you be moral without god?!” and the usual, nigh-formulaic answer to this is “because religions doesn’t have a monopoly on morality, people can be good without having to be threatened with punishment if they aren’t.”
So then, unless you want to cede the morality argument to the religious apologist, it behooves you, the atheist, to follow through on that counter-point and actually come up with something. Failing to do so renders that retort a lie.
@3, tsig
…who’re you talking to? What are you responding to?
Being an atheist doesn’t give you an obligation, sure. But the post was about trying to build a rational community. Communities pretty much require shared values, and a rational community even more so! You can stay away if being rational isn’t your cup of tea. No obligation for you to hang around. Shoo.
*or don’t shoo, if being rational is indeed your cup of tea.
Breathing the same air as the rest of us puts an obligation on you. Put on your big kid pants and deal with it.
@Azkyroth #9
I was going to say being human puts the obligation on you, but yes.
That obligation is the same for atheist and theist alike. We are all obligated as human beings living in a shared society to build a shared ethical framework for that society. We are all obligated as human beings in that society to try and make it the most kind and just society that we can regardless of our faith or lack thereof.
I was going to post “What Marcus Ranum Said,” but The Onion, as is so often the case, said it better than I ever could:
Man Going To Trust Society’s Determination That He Deserves His Privilege
As tsig said.
I agree that being secular, rational & religion free may require you put social justice issues first.
I don’t agree that being atheist automatically makes you secular, rational & religion free.
I only say this because from the very start I say atheists I did not agree with or associate with.
I don’t agree that there is exactly one response to the philosophical questions raised by being an atheist and I don’t agree that being a “SJW” is the only way to go.
Its weird. I agree that social justice issues should be front and center. I agree with everyone here on that.
I just don’t agree that atheist === sjw.
Atheist isn’t enough. Atheist+ is a good handle for that.
How strange, saying “I’m an atheist” suddenly means that I have to dance to the same tunes as theists and justify my actions to some atheist collective?
tsig @ 3:
No, being a human puts the obligation of being a decent human on you.
Atheism just makes it harder to dodge this by hiding behind Teh Wurd Ov Gawd.
But you got us – we’re trying to turn atheism in the Cult Of People Who Are Decent To Other People. How dare we! We must be stopped from achieving this nefarious goal!
Tsig posts # 2 of 3, at comment 13:
Did you read the responses to your first comment?
What is your philosophy of life? Do you lean more toward “people should be kind to each other” or “I got mine, fuck you”? In either case, how does the lack of a god influence your philosophy? Show your work.
“What is your philosophy of life? Do you lean more toward “people should be kind to each other” or “I got mine, fuck you”? ”
I’d like to know why you people seem to think that all of us who acknowledge that nothing about being an atheist necessarily leads to somebody being a good person (and we are clearly right about that, btw, since there are plenty of atheists who are shitty human beings) means we think its okay for atheists to be bad people. That’s quite a stretch.
And philosophy? Come on now, you guys are projecting your own experiences of why you are an atheist onto somebody else. I know in my last comment here i mentioned how “movement atheists” are fond of trying to speak for all atheists, but informing us that we view our own lack of belief in fairy tales as some sort of major philosophical choice is a bit much. I get that you do, probably because you were religiosified as a child and some major thought probably DID go into rejecting it later on, but please try to remember that y’all are not our leaders just because movement atheists like to think of themselves as such.
tsig,
How do you feel about if you had to swear on the Bible in court or if atheists had to pay a special tax. Or how about the prohibition on gay marriage? Creationism in biology class?
We’ve been through this thousands of times. Is your only objection to religion that Thor isn’t real?
Briane Larrieux at #16:
Not good enough. See me.
Why shouldn’t it lead to you being a better human being, because you without a god demanding tribalism with those like you by religion, decide your tribe is the whole of humanity, no matter what color, “race”, sexuality, etc. And you start thinking accordingly.
Your Vulcanism says you have nothing to say. So, go say it elsewhere.
QFT Anri’s #14
“Why shouldn’t it lead to you being a better human being,”
Seems rather a religious sentiment. Why should atheism lead to anything more than non belief in god?
Many seem to have brought the mind set of Christianity into their atheism. Me Vulcan, you Christian, isn’t name calling fun?
tsig @#21
Why do you say that “being a better human being” is a religious sentiment? Religion has no monopoly on morality
tsig, #21
Because it also leads to the rejection of god-based morality. Duh.
“We’ve been through this thousands of times. Is your only objection to religion that Thor isn’t real?”
Yeah, objecting to discrimination is not a necessary result of being an atheist. See: all the atheists who promote discrimination, often on secular grounds. Example: banning Muslim garb in France, at the national level even. And now y’all are even informing us that, as atheists, we object to religion! Big fans of telling others what we must think of things just because we are atheists, our self appointed leaders are. Reminds me a bit of something. Oh right, a church.
To be fair to the “actual” (fictional) Vulcans, they were a peaceful species that espoused the philosophy of IDIC–infinite diversity in infinite combinations–and used “live long and prosper” as a universal greeting. They would not disagree with PZ’s position on atheism.
The “supreme rationalists” that are sometimes dismissively called “Vulcans” because of their claim to be acting out of pure logic completely miss the point of the fictional Vulcans.
Maps? We’re Americans. We don’t need no stinkin’ maps.
And Briane sits at 2, while tsig hits his limit of 3 with
Reading for comprehension not your strong suit, is it? Here, let me click to the previous post that for you…
PZ:
But hey, just go on quoting the dictionary without ever engaging any of the arguments against your position. Eventually you’ll convince us.
…that you’re an idiot.
I am baffled by those who say the being an atheist puts any kind of obligation on me.
You sound like a little kid whining “Why should I have to…?” every time his mom tries to get him to clean up his room or take out the trash.
How strange, saying “I’m an atheist” suddenly means that I have to dance to the same tunes as theists and justify my actions to some atheist collective?
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know?
Briane, #24
I didn’t say atheists can’t promote discrimination. I’m saying atheists ought not to promote discrimination. One of the reasons for this is that they don’t believe in god, meaning they don’t believe rules for how we treat each other were handed down to us from this god, meaning rules for how we treat each other must come from us. And if you still come up with discrimination as one of these rules, what’s your excuse? You can’t even say because my holy book says so.
I think everyone (not just atheists) should support social justice causes whenever they can such as eradicating rape culture and equal treatment of humans regardless of gender. If you think that sounds like a church, then church sounds fucking awesome.
Big fans of telling others what we must think of things just because we are atheists…
Um, no, we’re telling others that we must make certain moral decisions for ourselves, both because the choices have to be made, and because there are no gods to make said choices for us. Not really sure why you’re having so much trouble understanding such a simple point. I got that much when I was twelve — but hey, maybe I’m just special…
Way back in the ’90’s I voted against putting ‘political platforms’ like social justice issues into the statement of an atheist organization. My reasoning was that atheists are such a small, marginalized, despised group that the best way to make an impact and increase membership was to focus on the widely shared social justice concerns which directly effect us — like church/state separation and religious discrimination/stigma — and stay away from official positions on topics like abortion, feminism, environmentalism, and racism. I was worried that those issues could “take over” and change the nature of the organization. In years to come we might become like the UU’s — let’s leave off arguing about religion (celebrate diversity!) and just try to make the world a better place.
I’ve changed my mind.
I’m not sure if I was wrong at the time. And I’m still leery of including those liberal causes on which reasonable atheists can consistently disagree into a mission statement. But basic social justice issues and a liberal approach to solving problems are intrinsic to an atheism which has its roots in the reason-based values of the Enlightenment. We have as a movement gone beyond the early days of trying to establish that no, there is no God and yes, we can still be moral. This is still ‘front and center’ — but by widening our mission we enhance our message, we don’t lose it. I think.
If we do “splinter” as a result that’s not necessarily a problem. It’s healthy. We’ve become strong enough to support diversity within atheism. We won’t be swamped out and lost.
tsig #3 wrote:
It’s a matter of perspective and consistency I think. Any atheist who is intellectually engaged enough to have reasons why they’re an atheist is already buying into some basic ethical foundations and values. If they also believe there are good reasons why atheists should join together and work for a common goal or goals of some kind — a more rational approach to thinking about the nature of reality, a more open and accepting cultural climate, a more supportive and friendly community environment for nonbelievers — then some obligations are necessarily entailed in that.
If nothing else, you’re obliged to support the point that being an atheist doesn’t put any kind of obligation on anyone — and wham, we’ve imported ethics. If we disagree you expect us to explain why we do so, and try to persuade you to change your mind. More obligations! You’re not the boss of us!!
No, it’s not about establishing dominance. It’s about reasonable people agreeing to be reasonable and follow all the obligations which follow from that.
Briane Larrieux
12 February 2015 at 7:46 am
1. I do not understand you point(s)
2. France is not an ‘atheist’ country. France is a Secular country with a long, long. long history of Catholicism, Christianity and Protestants (Huguenots) that, as a Country, is attempting to deal with a religious minority in a secular country. You forgot that, in France, the wearing of large crosses are also banned in government places.
3. You seem to be mixing up, “As an atheism, let’s hold ourselves to higher standards” as dogmatic statements from ‘atheist leaders’. As far as I know, I have never participated in the election of an atheist pope. Have you? What were the results? Who are these ‘popes’ that you are raving against? If these popes are ‘self appointment’ than why are you taking your lead from them? You could just ignore them, and follow your own standards. If so, what are your own standards? I would like to know them, and why your own standards are worth following as you seem to want to be your own self appointed pope of atheism. Seriously, please let me know your standards so that I can decide for myself if your own standards are worth adopting myself.
4. Essentially, I think your whole tirade can be summed up as follows: “You are not the boss of me!” Thus, congratulations? Would you like a bozo button?
Because there are consequences to any decision you make. No gods? Now, do you accept the rest of society based on biblical beliefs, or do you reject those biblical beliefs, and think for yourself? That is a consequence of saying there is no gods.
But failure to make a conscious decision means you unconsciously make the decision to accept the god besoaked society and not try to change if for the better. So it is still a consequence of your decision to say there is no gods.
#28 Raging Bee 12 February 2015 at 7:59 am
You forgot to add, “….every time Tsig’s Mom tried to get Tsig to take Tsig’s diarrhea medication” and Tsig’s response would be, “No! I am an atheist and I am allowed to shit all over the place, uncontrollably. You’re not the Boss of me!!!!:
FFS, being a human put obligations on you. You aren’t a special snowflake that exits as an entirely independent being above the rights of others. You do not get to be a giant drag for the rest of us and not get called out. Being an atheist is not a Get Out of Morality Free card. Put on your grown up pants and deal.
Right?
Atheists howling for the right to discriminate and claiming denial of that “right” is the real discrimination.
Wow. Atheist bigots have alot in common with religious bigots.
“I didn’t say atheists can’t promote discrimination. I’m saying atheists ought not to promote discrimination. ” well that’s true – nobody ought to! nothing to do with atheism there.
“I think everyone (not just atheists) should support social justice causes whenever they can such as eradicating rape culture and equal treatment of humans regardless of gender.”
and lots of churches support them, and lots of atheists don’t! odd! i guess being religious does not lead naturally to being a bad person, and being an atheist does not lead naturally to be a good person. cool, we are agreed!
“If you think that sounds like a church, then church sounds fucking awesome.”
lol you know perfectly well what i was referring to, now you’re just being disengenous.
—-
“Um, no, we’re telling others that we must make certain moral decisions for ourselves, both because the choices have to be made, and because there are no gods to make said choices for us. Not really sure why you’re having so much trouble understanding such a simple point.”
you’re right – that actually is a logical outgrowth of being an atheist. but its nothing to do with anything we’re talking about, so now you’re just attempting to staw man me.
——-
“1. I do not understand you point(s)” that’s cool, i don’t understand how telling people their political beliefs based on their god beliefs is even an argument, but i guess that’s just what passes here.
“France is not an ‘atheist’ country.” nope, but a lot of atheists sure were involved in making that law, and a lot of atheists are sure big open fans of it. oh, and comparing banning employees wearing religious adornment on government property to banning civilians wearing religious adornment anywhere is a bit… sketchy, but okay.
“I have never participated in the election of an atheist pope. Have you?” no? hence why i have a problem with people who feel like they are atheist popes telling people what to believe about their own atheism? did that not come across well from me, because i thought it did.
“Would you like a bozo button?” ooooh an ad hominem.
——-
“You forgot to add, “….every time Tsig’s Mom tried to get Tsig to take Tsig’s diarrhea medication” and Tsig’s response would be, “No! I am an atheist and I am allowed to shit all over the place, uncontrollably. You’re not the Boss of me!!!!:”
more ad hominems! the guy has never said anything remotely offensive, but yet y’all still think its appropriate to imply that he’s juvenile and a whiner merely because he doesn’t allow you to dicate the meaning of atheism to him. in fact, somebody even called him an idiot earlier and nobody called them out on the ableism but i guess that stuff flies around here when you’re not able to tell someone how to think.
Sastra,
Any movement that hopes to flourish without any consideration of social justice isn’t a movement I want to flourish at all.
“I’m not sure if I was wrong at the time.”
Oh, you totally were. Ask a poor, atheist woman or person of color about their experiences with being an atheist in 90s; ask them if they felt like their needs as a member of a despised and marginalized group were being supported.
If you want any kind of organized atheism, you either are going to be liberal or you’re going to twist yourself into knots justifying the racist Patriarchy without blond blue-eyed Jesus to back you. If atheism is about reality and reality has a well-known liberal bias . . .
Go home. You’re drunk.
You evidently have no idea what “religious” means or what such a sentiment would actually be like. What’s throwing you off track? Is it the word “better” or that there’s some kind of a reference to anything valuable or useful or interesting? Whatever it may be, there’s no reason think anybody could take your bullshit seriously, even if you thought you were.
To begin with, as others already said, existing is what puts obligations on you, as a sentient social organism living with the rest of us on this planet. Deal with it.
The reason atheism “should” (read: does) lead to anything more, as you put it, is because disbelieving in gods is a substantive empirical claim about reality and as such has some content to it. Claims like that do not simply float in a vacuum all by themselves, as it were. (Neither do you as an individual, for that matter.) That is, because it has content, a person is able to reason about it and any of its possible relationships with other substantive claims. That’s because reality, if you need to ask, is self-consistent, so any claim about it, which is meant to be taken seriously and realistically, has consequences of some sort or another. Things pretty much bottom out there. There aren’t any other options or hiding places for you, so while you might think there are different consequences than I do, there is no sensible way to support your absurd fucking assertion that in fact there are none.
If your position means essentially that you think you’re incapable of reasoning about it, that’s your fucking problem, not mine. There’s also no indication of any problem inherent to atheism as a belief system or with the simple fact that gods don’t exist.
called him an idiot
You’re an idiot too. You’re willfully ignorant, dishonest and stupid. That’s not ableism. That is a demonstrable fact.
You know how I know?
You are arguing against holding people to a moral standard of any kind while you try to call us “ableist” and insist we use logic in our arguments. You clearly do not know what a straw man of an ad hom fallacy is on top of that.
If you wanted us to think you were smarter than the average bear, you should have brought your “A” game. If this is your “A” game, you’re as bright as a two watt light bulb.
All morality is the domain of religion? So atheists can’t be or should not be expected to be moral without religion? I hope you don’t tell your potential employers or partners that.
Are you stating that there are no rational arguments for justice and compassion?
As opposed to him telling us that our atheism should be absolutely fucking meaningless and how dare we want atheism to mean something valuable and positive at all. Yeah, poor little victim…
When i call myself an atheist, i’d like it to mean something, and if it’s going to mean something, i’d like it to be something positive. You obviously prefer a worthless, meaningless label that serves absolutely no purpose and does absolutely nothing. I prefer my atheism to mean that i support church/state separation, and freedom of and from religion, that i’m against religiously based “moral” codes, that i embrace reality and the consequences that its properties have on what i and others experience, that i value my life and the lives of others…
Why should our arguments be honest and logical just because we’re atheists?
There are atheists who don’t know logic from a hole in the ground! There are atheists who lie! You can’t make us dance to your tune and tell us how we have to be just because we’re atheists!
/snark
“called him an idiot
You’re an idiot too. You’re willfully ignorant, dishonest and stupid. That’s not ableism. That is a demonstrable fact.”
atheism+ everybody! not ableist bigots, unless they feel it that day! pfft. i can’t believe you self-important turds think you have anything to teach anybody about morality. please.
“As opposed to him telling us that our atheism should be absolutely fucking meaningless and how dare we want atheism to mean something valuable and positive at all.”
yeah, that’s not what he said.
Racist? Welcome to atheism!
Sexist? Welcome to atheism!
Gun fondler? Welcome to atheism!
Far right on all things but religion? Come on in! We’re happy to make room under the big tent for you!
Social justice progressive? GTFO
/s
Briane Larrieux,
Now that you’ve had your melt down, you must be all tuckered out. Poor thing. You just do not know when to stop digging.
So, instead of arguing the points you are going to fall back on “I know you are, but what am I!” and pretend we’re being ableist and that this is an A+ forum.
Yeah, have fun on the other side of the rift. You’re right. We have nothing to teach you. You go be you, snowflake.
“Racist? Welcome to atheism!
Sexist? Welcome to atheism!
Gun fondler? Welcome to atheism!
Far right on all things but religion? Come on in! We’re happy to make room under the big tent for you!
Social justice progressive? GTFO”
it’s funny that you’re perfectly aware that your movement is a pile of dung, but are so opposed to admitting that atheism has no relation whatsoever to character. because you lack it yourself?
Why shouldn’t we be ableist, Briane? (No one is, but let’s say we were.) Why should we be “obligated” to be anything other than the wort sorts of people alive?
What does that have to do with us? We’re atheists.
Ponder that in your heart.
Don’t they realize that supporting Social Justice could mean supporting feminists? What a radical idea!
Jackie #38 wrote:
I agree.
Of course, the more ‘purist’ atheist position still involves social justice ethical issues like separation of church and state and promoting science … as well as the honest pursuit of truth. That last one brings in the others. It can’t be successfully cordoned off — and we certainly shouldn’t aim at that.
That literally could not make less sense.
How aware are we?
http://www.rockymusic.org/img/rhps/RHPS-Credits-CharlesGray.jpg
I have a movement?
http://p.gr-assets.com/540×540/fit/hostedimages/1381096126/4180784.gif
LOLWUUUT?
Sure. I argue that social justice is key to morality and that morality is not only the domain of the religious because I lack character. That’s just how to logic good.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1134170/spock-orly-o.gif
I notice several of the commentariat offered arguments like:
FFS, being a human put obligations on you
That argument holds a lot of water with me, but doesn’t seem to be swaying our visiting libertarian/nihilists, so maybe I can “show the worK’ behind it. And it goes like this:
– If a person exists without parents or society or friends or other humans to nurture them, then they have a basis to reject the idea that they may owe reciprocity to other human beings because of the mere fact of their existence.
– However, no such person exists.
– By virtue of living around, interacting with, working for, taking from, sharing space, being fed by(*) other humans, we incur a debt to them to act fairly, because (presumably) even the most hardened nihilist would feel they were being treated unfairly if everyone ignored them, gave them noplace to live, took everything from, crowded out, and starved them. It is possible to imagine someone who so little needs anything from their fellow man, but if you explore that scenario you’ll realize that it begins and ends with them having their throat cut for the lint in their pockets, them having no “right” to exist.
– Therefore: “rights” are seen as a mutually reinforcing web of sharing and debt that individuals must interact with as a matter of living. The initial debt incurred is to one’s parents and care-givers as a child, and the individual’s meshing with society continues from there.
– (*) Some might argue that food, etc, are “exchanges” or trades of value for value, but the mechanism whereby food is brought to any individual involves deeply embedded unfairness because the exchange is not at par: a person who can afford nice chocolate ice cream is not paying as much (in terms of blood, sweat, and tears) as the workers who harvested the cocoa beans, or the cow that produced the milk did.
Anyone who wishes to insist that they do not incur some debt or enter into exchange by being a member of society is welcome to take up residence in some corner of my property, and live outside of society. I may, however, put a plastic bag over your head and do away with you some night for my amusement. Contact me offline if you wish to explore True Nihilism(tm)
It’s not funny but sad that you think you have a point here. Character? That it doesn’t “make” people good “necessarily” or “automatically” or “by definition” does not need to have any fucking relation whatsoever to the actual claim people are making about it: that certain things are entailed by it. Not that people must be some way since they are caused by whatever the fuck you thought we were talking about, but that there are logical relations between ideas that are about reality.
The difference could not be made any more explicit than that, but I have no doubt that shit-stirring trolls like you will keep pretending it hasn’t already been said a million fucking times in a million fucking ways, assuming you weren’t capable in the first place of not recognizing the equivocation on your own and understanding what the fucking problem even is.
“Why shouldn’t we be ableist, Briane? (No one is, but let’s say we were.) Why should we be “obligated” to be anything other than the wort sorts of people alive?
What does that have to do with us? We’re atheists.
Ponder that in your heart.”
don’t attempt to lecture me on morality. you’ve already revealed yourself.
“that certain things are entailed by it.”
nothing is entailed by atheism, and your continued insistence that it is, is rather offensive to all the non-atheists out there who are good people while plenty of atheists are not, and to all the people harmed by shitty atheist behaviour, whose shitty behaviour was a direct result of their atheist beliefs.
Briane, #37
You idiot, “is” is not the same as “ought”. That’s the second time you’ve tried to misconstrue my post like that.
I’m not saying what atheism is leading to. I’m saying what atheism should lead to.
“atheism actually inherently leads to morality!” shriek movement atheists after an atheist guns down a group of muslims. tactful. your “movement” gives all the rest of us a bad name and it would be better for us if y’all would not say crappy things at super insensitive times, please.
“You idiot”
woops again! the social justice branch of atheism, just really winning at it!
Questions are lectures now?
Do you really think you are fooling anyone into believing anything other than that you can’t find a way out of your hole so you’re just pretending that you aren’t in one?
Answer the questions if you’re gonna stick around Briane. Otherwise you’re just slinging poo at the walls while you have a pout.
…and I reveal myself like this:
http://media3.giphy.com/media/OvpBpU8u10vSw/giphy.gif
Briane, #37
No, I really didn’t. Oh, you don’t mean church in the sense of wanting to belong to a community that’s atheist but also cares about and promotes certain values, do you? I’m definitely guilty of that.
Or did you mean church in the sense of having leaders who will dogmatically tell people what to think, lie to them, trick them out of their money, and punish them if they don’t believe the dogma. If that’s what you mean you need to show something I’ve said that even slightly implies that.
Ah, don’t you just LOVE those vocal atheists who lack self-awareness: “I’m an atheist! It doesn’t mean anything except that I don’t believe in a god or gods! I do not belong to any sort of community! Atheism has nothing to do with belonging to a community!”
….While they spend time in online communities talking and arguing about atheism. SURE! But you are totally ~just an atheist! Who doesn’t belong to any sort of community! Uh-huh.
Briane, #60
My goodness, it’s as if you don’t even bother to look up the definition of the terms you’re arguing about. Nothing about social justice means I have to pretend to be nice to people being obtuse assholes on an internet forum.
Briane Larrieux,
No joke.
Shouldn’t you be in school?
You write and logic like you should be in school or having blankie time on a cot.
No, being actively opposed to racism does not lead to hate crimes. No, being opposed to unregulated or poorly regulated firearms does not lead to shootings. This murdering, bigoted, atheist fuckwad was a fan of Sam Harris and Bill Mahr. He was not a SJ minded atheist. No, you are not making sense. Yes, you’re fucking stupid and dishonest and you are making a fool of yourself in real time before our very eyes. Frankly, I’m delighted to see someone as inarticulate as you argue against social justice atheism.
Things Briane should Google:
ad hom fallacies
straw man fallacies
ableism
community
sarcasm
How not to be a doughebag just because you are an atheist.
How not to argue against standards and then try to bludgeon other people with your misunderstanding of those same standards.
“My goodness, it’s as if you don’t even bother to look up the definition of the terms you’re arguing about. Nothing about social justice means I have to pretend to be nice to people being obtuse assholes on an internet forum.”
i see. i’m an asshole for politely disagreeing? social justice doesn’t include not repeatedly using and defending the use of ableist slurs? see what i mean about y’all giving the rest of us a bad name? “i am FILLED with social justice, you STUPID IDIOT!” what do you think? it actually sounds very typical internet atheisty. should it be the atheist movement motto?
and you guys view yourselves the *good* branch of atheism, lol.
Briane, you weren’t being told that you have a physical or mental deficiency, just that you’re morally bankrupt for your unwillingness to recognize the consequences of atheism. But hey, that wasn’t me saying it. You seem bright enough, but you’re missing an important fact of atheism, and logic.
Like I said in another thread (I meant for it to go here actually!), when you assert a fact, consequences flow from it naturally. You can’t have atheism in isolation – every prior has postulates, every belief has consequences. That’s true of atheism too. And, any time your belief or its consequences touches another person, that point of contact is morality. That’s the definition of ethical beliefs – a belief held by one person which affects another (correct me if i’m wrong on that, I’m playing fast and loose with definitions here).
You don’t get to have atheism in an isolated bubble, where it means only a lack of belief in gods. You don’t get to have any belief in an isolated bubble. That’s not how beliefs work.
Can we move the discussion on to what the consequences of Atheism are now? That’s a much more interesting conversation.
Briane Larrieux @ 60
Social Justice has nothing to do with being polite to people who wave their ignorance and irrationality around like a fucking flag. You idiot.
“ad hom fallacies
straw man fallacies
ableism
community
sarcasm
How not to be a doughebag just because you are an atheist.
How not to argue against standards and then try to bludgeon other people with your misunderstanding of those same standards.”
well, i’m definitely guilty of the sarcasm, but all the other points are awarded to you, actually. the last one is especially ironic, what with your attempts to lecture me on social justice while using developmental disability as an insult.
“You idiot.”
what is that now, four? ah, the sweet ring of social justice.
How to Win at Internet:
Step One – Assert something! It doesn’t have to be true or even well thought out!
Step Two – When they point out that your assertion is bogus, assert it again!
Step Three – Repeat step two until people stop talking, or you’re banned!
Step Four – Claim your prize as Chief Master Internet Victory Person!
Man, these end bosses are getting tedious.
Briane Larrieux @ 71
Ya know what, asshole? I’ll concede “idiot” to you as ableist by virtue of its etymology and stop using it. Now try making an argument that isn’t predicated on the assumption that beliefs exist in a vacuum and never affect anyone other than the believer.
Ever seen a June Bug on a string? They just obliviously fly around in circles thinking they are getting somewhere.
Just reminded of that.
No reason.
*shifty eyes*
Brianne,
I have developmentally disabled children. I have a mental illness. So fuck you and your make believe outrage.
Briane Larrieux #57 wrote:
If “nothing is entailed by atheism” then how could an atheist’s shitty behavior be a direct result of their atheist beliefs? How can it be judged shitty, or not, by atheists?
You can be technically correct and yet wrong, if you’re looking at too small a picture and isolating an idea from what it’s embedded within. Not all atheists came to atheism through reason, or support rationality, or value the epistemic democracy which this entails. True. It doesn’t have to go anywhere. Just as “science” can be divorced from the ethical obligation to be honest and curious and open and follow the evidence where it leads.
A racist atheist is rather like a scientific argument for astrology.
If you’re going to get technical, then sure they qualify. But as soon as we all start to engage with the larger picture now we’re getting into a debate those two are going to lose.
“Stupid” does not mean disabled. In your case, it means you are too lazy and up your own ass to be expected to learn a damn thing.
Seconded, because I’m very curious about how you can answer that. All other beliefs about the nature of the universe have consequences that follow from them, why doesn’t atheism? Do you think it’s because it’s a negative belief, just a lack-of-belief? (I don’t think that’s true, but I don’t want to distract from Seven’s question).
Why do you think that atheism doesn’t have consequences?
That cheap gotcha is the only arrow Briane has in the quiver.
The Awesome Theoretical Atheist refuses to look at the implications of atheism in the real-world where religions have been a dominating force in running society. Xe lets the religious bullies make decisions about moral issues. Homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, and religious discrimination for everyone! As long as they don’t say god exists. That’s totally off limits. Oh and xe really gets peeved if there’s a large stone tablet with ten sentences on it in front of a courthouse. So not cool. Just don’t even hint that xe should care about equality for women as a consequence of his lack of god-based morality. That’s the only thing xe hates more than the sky daddy.
…and I said you needed to look up sarcasm, not because you were being sarcastic, but because you failed at being sarcastic.
See. You’re stupid.
Briane,
If social justice is so bad and it leads to murder, why are you decrying ableism at all?
Isn’t that dangerous and bad? You said it was.
Disagreement is no problem. But if all you do is preach you views, without backing it up with evidence, that is a problem, and makes you an asshole no matter how polite you pretend to be.
Here Briane, try this:
There is an opposite to smart and you’re it.
There is an opposite to honest and you’re it.
There is an opposite to right and you are it.
“Step Two – When they point out that your assertion is bogus, assert it again!”
the entire atheist world outside the has informed you that your “assertion” that atheism leads to specific politics or morality is false. this is evidentially demonstrated by atheists varying quite evenly across the political spectrum. your unwillingness to accept that they may have thought out their atheism and come to different conclusions based on their atheism is something you’re going to have to live with i guess.
also, i’ve been polite this entire time. my “crime” is disagreement. isn’t it surreal that while i get heaped with insult after insults, i’m the one threatened with a ban?
Uh…. What?
Is it the case that nothing is “a direct result of their atheist beliefs” or is it that there is something which is, at least indirectly, a result of some sort? You get to pick only one of those at a time.
Let’s go to the tape…
Polite, got it.
Lying is generally considered impolite.
Why would you care about having a bad name? Atheism doesn’t imply having or desiring a good name, right?
Another lie. There’s more to politeness than avoiding hurty words, you know.
Uh-huh
Sure. There is no atheist community, but their is an “atheist world” and we are not in it because we only exist on these threads and no where else. Please provide evidence of the entire atheist world being anti-social justice and morality please. You can include it along with evidence backing up all of your other straight from your ass claims.
You know that at no time did anyone say that atheists could not be immoral. After all, you are being dishonest now. All people can be wretched, horrible, no good, shitlords. All of us. It does not imply that we should. Atheists should use logic, facts and empathy to make choices because EVERYONE SHOULD! Yes, that leads to morality. Otherwise what are atheists complaining about when religious people do horrible immoral shit in the name of religion? Freedom of/from religion is social justice. I don’t care that people believe in Jesus. I care that they use that as an excuse to deny other people their rights. That’s not anti-theism. That’s social justice.
Just spell it out Briane,
Which people do you want the right to mistreat?
You have not been arrested for any crime. This is not a court. It is a blog.
No one threatened you with anything. A pattern was recognized.
Are you physically incapable of honesty?
“If social justice is so bad and it leads to murder, why are you decrying ableism at all?
Isn’t that dangerous and bad? You said it was.”
lol. i guarantee i am more radical “social justice warrior” than all of you combined. my “social justice warrioring” also extends to laughing at phony “movement leaders” trying to pretend their group is magically less inclined to bigotry merely because they don’t have a holy book telling them to do so. you’re so invested in believing your own chosen god ideology is THE ticket to morality if people would just follow it properly, you can’t even see the reason so many people tell you the belief is false and mirrors religious pattern thought, is that you are literally repeating the words of preachers who say the exact same junk about their own ideology. they’re wrong, you’re wrong. so when people point out how silly what you’re saying is, and try to get you to understand how faulty you’re being by comparing it to its religious equivalent, instead you try accuse anybody who recognizes the obvious of being a right-winger libertarian roosh fan come to troll you. that’s what their is in your silly world – people who believe atheism is spaghetti’s magical gift to oppressed groups despite all logic and worldly evidence to the contrary, or slymepitters. lol.
Briane Larrieux @ 85
A bald, un-evidenced assertion doesn’t become a fact just because you say “informed” instead of “asserted”.
The fact that some people have come to a different conclusion re: the implications of atheism is not evidence that our conclusion is wrong.
Your unwillingness to be consistent with yourself from one fucking sentence to the next is also something we’re apparently just going to have to live with. Which is it? Does atheism entail nothing or not? If it entails nothing, then we’re absolutely right to to be unwilling to accept that anyone has come to any conclusion at all based on their atheism. If you want us to accept that it’s possible for people to come to different conclusions based on their atheism, you need to stop insisting that atheism entails nothing. You can’t have it both ways, asshole.
@Briane, The fact that you’ve latched onto the quippy, sarcastic post I made instead of the actual consequential questions sort of says it all. Still! I’ll play ball, sure.
That there are ethical consequences to atheism isn’t an assertion, it’s a consequence. You’re free to say that it’s a poorly-made consequence, but they’re very different things. Atheism isn’t in a bubble, protecting it from having consequences. All there is for us is to discuss what the consequences of Atheism are. That people exist who disagree doesn’t mean these consequences are wrong, just that there are people who disagree.
I for one would love to have that discussion – it’s fertile ground and it’s what we really should be talking about. Looks like we have to climb Mt. Ridiculous Semantics first though.
Haven’t at all said that they didn’t think through their Atheism and came to different conclusions.
Just saying that they’re wrong.
Would love to talk about why, but we’re still mountaineering. Spelunking? Maybe it’s spelunking at this point.
Ah yes, tone trolling. Just asking questions! Just disagreeing politely! Note that you haven’t been banned yet, you’ve just made people angry (not me, I’m pretty patient!) and they’re reacting in kind. En garde, blaggard!
Briane, #91
Which ideology is that?
What exactly is the comparison?
C’mon. Stop talking shit and put some substance into your posts.
Answer my two questions above. And no strawmen.
“Polite, got it.”
i didn’t insult a person, dear, i insulted a movement. a terrible movement notorious for its racist, sexist leaders and mobs of harrassers. are you now getting to the point where movement atheism is starting to demand protection from criticism the same way self-appointed leaders of islam and christianity demand it?
Briane,
Wait…..
Are we on the same side here? See, when you say racist, sexist leaders, mobs of harassers, I get the feeling we’re talking about people like Harris, Shermer, Nugent and the MRA bunch.
You do know that’s not exactly the group we mean when we say social justice atheism, right?
“That there are ethical consequences to atheism isn’t an assertion, it’s a consequence.”
no kidding! there are ethical consequences to atheism – your problem is that you don’t recognize those consequences are individual to the atheist. my consequences for atheism, for example, are rather different than richard dawkins’s. his atheism led him to somewhat opposite political conclusions, didn’t it? i wonder how it could possibly be that two people may have different perspectives on the same form of god belief, that almost makes it sound like atheism isn’t special!
At this point, Briane Larrieux is apparently trolling even himself. Imagining it as some sort of exploration is not something I think I can do.
Briane Larrieux @ 97
Reality is not individual to the atheist, diddums.
Haha, okay! Great, we’re getting somewhere! That’s a perfectly fine point. I actually do realize that the outcome of the ethical consequences of Atheism are individual – every logical and ethical evaluation is individual at the end of the day.
You’re misconstruing. I’m saying that they’ve come to the wrong conclusions, and I think that’s what the others here are saying, too. I’m saying that, in the question of “What are the logical conclusions of Atheism”, there are right answers and wrong answers, and that they’ve got a wrong answer. Can we move on to talking about why we feel their answer is wrong, and why we feel that Atheism logically extends to compassion and social justice, now?
Anyone want to correct me on that? I’m a new commenter here, so don’t want to speak for everyone.
“You do know that’s not exactly the group we mean when we say social justice atheism, right?”
i read this blog often and i know exactly what is what. you’re the ones so blinded by ideological bias you go off on ridiculous tangents when anybody mentions that atheism does not actually lead to any sort of moral conclusion and suddenly it becomes “OMG U THINK WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MORAL STANDERDZZ!!” and voila, the actual argument is successfully evaded.
Oooh! Oooh!! *waves hand* Do we have another disappointed long-time reader? Do I win?
All that statement needs is a condemnation of the change in content here.
tsig #3
I don’t think anyone has suggested that atheism increases your obligations beyond where they started. For that matter, I don’t think anyone was obligating you personally to help the cause of social justice, though I admit I feel free to think less of you if you really don’t care that much about other people.
I interpret PZ’s point to be that any group of people assembled according to their values (as opposed to say, professional skills or hobby interests) would naturally put social justice to the fore. He didn’t even claim to be baffled by those who don’t feel that way, just those who cannot even understand why that might be a reasonable thing to suppose. The issue of atheism is orthogonal to obligation. No, it does not obligate you to caring about other people and about basic fairness. But it doesn’t free you either.
Briane @ 97
Briane’s very next post @ 101
Welp.
“You’re misconstruing. I’m saying that they’ve come to the wrong conclusions,”
and i’m saying you’re wrong. its a perfectly logical outcome for an atheist to seek to further his own interests through being a shitface. he has different goals than you, and he’s serving his own.
“when anybody mentions that atheism does not actually lead to any sort of moral conclusion
Welp.”
fine, add “for all atheists” to the end of the sentence then. i thought it was pretty clearly implied by context, but since we’re going to nitpick.
Briane,
You have yet to make any point, present any evidence or any logical argument at all.
You can’t decide if there is an atheist community, if morality is a good thing or not, if social justice is the root of all evil or if it is not. You are not polite. You are not the bestest at logic and morality ever and that straw man you just constructed blew over. You describe us as fascists for suggesting that if we don’t want to see more atheist bigots murder people that we might want to take a stand against bigotry and violence in the atheist community. Then you accused us of causing a hate crime.
Again, just tell us who you think it is moral to oppress?
The poor?
Women?
Maybe black people?
That’s all right wing politics is. It’s the haves shitting on the have nots and telling them to be grateful for the fertilizer. It’s gun fondlers claiming that their right to own a killing machine trumps other people’s right not to be shot. It’s white cops executing black men, women and children in the streets while calling themselves heroes. It’s men telling women not to get raped instead of telling men not to rape. It’s the rich telling the poor to work harder to survive while they get richer off of the sweat of the people barely scraping by. It’s also the religious majority saying that secularism is discrimination against them. There is nothing moral about that.
Who is it exactly that it is OK for atheists to shit on?
BTW, Dawkins is a bigoted asshole. He’s a perfect example of what a “little to the right” has come to mean. He racist, classist and sexist. Yes, he’s still an atheist. No, he is not an example of why atheists should not be expected to care about equality and justice.
Yeah, a long-time leader who still somehow thinks we’re beholden to Dawkins, Harris et al. and never figured out how to blockquote.
Briane @ 106
*le sigh* It’s such a burden to be expected to use words in a way that effectively communicates what I actually mean.
i didn’t insult a person,
“You can’t decide if there is an atheist community, if morality is a good thing or not, if social justice is the root of all evil or if it is not.”yes i can, but its not the topic, so why would i go into it? more tangents to distract people from examining your faulty argument.
“You are not the bestest at logic or morality” never said i was
“that straw man you just constructed blew over.” i’ve actually been the only one staying on topic this whole time actually.
“You describe us as fascists” yeah this never happened.
“Then you accused us of causing a hate crime.” lol complete fabrication.
“Again, just tell us who you think it is moral to oppress?” maybe those with developmental disabilities? apparently i’m in the right company.
“That’s all right wing politics is.” somebody’s a rightwinger for not having magical thoughts about atheists. you’re quite the fan of hyperbole.
Briane, why are you so desperate to insist that being an atheist should have no consequences? Practically every decision we make, and every opinion we form or assimilate, has consequences in our lives’ choices; so why should we all believe that our choice to disregard religious beliefs is less meaningful or consequential than our musical tastes? Do you WANT atheism to be meaningless in the real world? If so, why?
And besides, when you try to forcibly separate atheism from any consequences, you’re kind of flying in the face of huge numbers of people whose embrace of atheism had a LOT of consequences. Denying and minimizing other people’s experiences is really dishonest, and I really have to question your motives here.
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide of bs,
Briane escaped from reality.
@Briane;
I think PaulBC’s comment at 103 is a pretty good reply/statement there, I like the point on obligation being orthagonal to Atheism, but that orthagonality doesn’t mean you’re absolved of morality.
An individual atheist, or any other human, can certainly be a terrible, self-serving jerk. Of course. But Atheism itself has implications (as pointed out by you and Seven of Mine @ 104), and to be logically consistent an atheist ought not to be that terrible, self-serving jerk.
Shall I spell out my own understanding? Taking as premises that a) Morality exists as a guideline of how one ought to interact with other people, and b) there are no gods or supernatural entities, only the things we see in the physical world, the outcome of this is c) morality must extend from the things we see in the physical world (corollary: and not from the statements supposed to come from gods or supernatural entities).
This implies that we need to re-examine our ethical codes to remove the influence of religion. Done!
And, before you point out that others come to other conclusions – which they do – that doesn’t mean their conclusions are right. I’m willing to entertain their suggestions on what Atheism implies, but if they want me to not think that it implies opposing sexism, racism, or those other social-justicey things, they’re going to have to knock out the underpinnings of my own conclusion first.
In a battle of the wits, you are unarmed.
Show me the hyperbole. Evidence, asshole, do you have it?
“You called a disabled person an ableist, questioned my character, called us all turds etc.” i called the people who use ableist slurs turds. that was you. frankly it’s my duty as a person who has a two developmentally disabled siblings to give people who use developmental disability-based slurs hella putdowns, and i thought turd was rather mild for what was called for.
Is there a list of things I have to believe and do to be a true atheist?
I don’t. I think they are crystal clear.
Briane, #101
Speaking of evading arguments, check post #94.
tsig @ 117: Not at all! You can be a True Atheist if you want! You can even be the Grand Atheist! Apparently there’s a guy who decided to be an Amazing Atheist too. Sure thing!
However, if you want to be a consistent atheist, there are some prerequisites, yes. Just like the fact that if you want to be a consistent person, there are some prerequisites.
tsig,
We’re talking about should not is. Social justice issues should be important to someone who doesn’t believe morality is what god says it is. God not existing doesn’t mean moral issues have also vanished. One of the atheist objections to religion in the real world is that religion is harmful to people.
I never used an ableist term. Fuck your dishonesty and your make believe outrage. Again.
Another hateful, dishonest, atheists cries about expecting atheists to act like decent people.
Every last one of them know that they are the ones who will be told to scoot if bigots, liars and harassers are no longer welcomed in atheist spaces. Briane is defending xerself.
No. But there is a list for being a good person who also happens to be an atheist. In the interests of not giving all atheists a bad name. But it’s not obligatory. Feel free to be an asshole atheist!
No one used the words “true atheist” but you. I get that it is easier to lie about what we said than to actually argue against what is being said, but that doesn’t make it OK.
What is it that you do that you are afraid of being looked down on by other atheists if equality and justice become common concerns among our community?
“Briane, why are you so desperate to insist that being an atheist should have no consequences?”
it’s not that it should have no consequences, its that it doesn’t. not believing in a god means nothing more than not believing in a god. there are also no consequences to not believing in the tooth fairy. or leprechauns. if you want to argue to dickheads that they should have moral standards, go for it. argue it from ethical or social philosophies. arguing it from atheism is futile, since non-existence of the supernatural does mean i should not shoot muslims.
I think with regard to some people objecting to atheism leading to social justice ideas, there is an implicit assumption that people come to atheism via rational thinking. Of course this isn’t always true and there are atheists who believe in astrology, homeopathy, and alien abduction, for example. One could be an atheist and, as one example, believe that science has shown that white people are genetically superior and, therefore, support causes that are racist. This would not be defensible, but there are those who believe that there is science to support their ideas.
Having said all that, however, I agree that rational thinking should lead one to support social justice issues. And, in my experience, it seems that those who complain about atheism and social justice are, at heart, really opposed to just one aspect of social justice: namely feminism. A recent MRA poll indicated they are 98% white, 84% strongly conservative, and 94% atheist or agnostic! That is very disturbing to me and I would like to know what the correlation b/n being atheist and being anti-feminist is. Here is a link to the poll results: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/04/13/but-how-do-you-know-the-mras-are-atheists/
No man is an island. Neither are you. You exist as part of a human society. Evidently you don’t want to accept that, or you want to make sure you come out on top by being a bad asshole who makes all the decisions for everybody. All that does is make you look like an asshole.
What horrible things do these people think will happen if atheist communities start to be inclusive and intersectional?
What outcome exactly is it that they are so angry about?
Those are rhetorical questions. Just like it turned out that people raged against harassment policies turned out to be serial harassers themselves, these people are against social justice in atheism because they are the problem we hope to fix. If minorities are to feel welcome and our communities, people who hate them have to go. They won’t leave without calling us all meanies and stomping their feet about “race cards” and “misandry”.
“I never used an ableist term” idiot is in fact an ableist term. ask my siblings, who get called that. you’d think any person truly concerned with social justice issues would actually know such basic things. odd, that.
“atheists cries about expecting atheists to act like decent people.”
ironically, this is the first true thing you’ve said all this time, although i apologize if my standards for you may have been set too high.
Briane,
Nice try at changing the argument just slightly again. Not just supernatural. In a large part of the real world, atheism is not believing in specific god of the area and rejecting the idea that how people should be treated was decided by that god. We sure are moving into moral implications now.
Dictionary atheism is pointless. Theism isn’t just a belief in god. Atheism in practice is a response to theism. Maybe one day when religion isn’t a problem, atheism will just be a standard way of being without need for movements.
tsig #117
Whatever you write down, but when you talk beliefs, they are unevidenced. Stupid question, avoid that there are consequences to saying “there are no gods”. How you deal with those consequences is up to you. You just can’t say there are no consequences, when there clearly are many, as has pointed out my many people above.
I look at what is the evidence and consequences of treating everybody equally, versus setting up a de facto caste system. I came down on the SJW side as that is were the evidence pointed to the best results for the most people.
No one claims morals come from the tooth fairy. People do not decide right from wrong based on beliefs in leprechauns.
Not believing in those things still leaves you a real person in a real world full of other real people. You do have to decide how to navigate that world and you do have to decide how you make that decision. As an atheist, you don’t get that from a god. You get it from reason, facts and empathy. To be human is to have a morality. No, not all people’s ideas of morality are equal. Words and actions can be judged to be immoral and/or based on shitty reasoning and motivations.
“You exist as part of a human society.”
*snort*
finally somebody points out where actual ethics come from, rather than attributing it to levels of their god-belief.
Jackie,
Could not have said it better. It’s kind of a dead giveaway, isn’t it? Just what is the problem with emphasizing equality and fairness in a group consisting of atheists?
Briane,
I’ve seen what your family calls a discussion. I won’t be asking them anything.
You are lying purposefully and you owe me an apology. You owe my kids an apology and you owe the commenters here an apology for the derail.
Briane @ 133
…
I have no evens to just…
Jesus, Briane.
I’m trying to find a reason to call you anything other than sharp as a box of marbles, but I can’t. The way you keep high five-ing yourself every time you think you’ve scored a point is too much like a dog being proud of catching it’s own tail.
No one made that claim.
Ever.
Ever.
Ever.
By the argument of “Atheism doesn’t imply anything about ethics”, neither does religion.
God says “do X, Y and don’t ever do Z. Because X and Y are good and Z is bad.” That’s an authority saying what’s good or bad, not what is good or bad. We have to come up with our own ethical systems, which at that point consist more of “Is God good or bad?”, though I think the rest of ethics still gets constructed by us in the end, too.
Directly analogous to the question of whether there are ethical implications of Atheism. So, are you saying that religions don’t have ethical implications as well – that we’re all building it up on our own? I can actually get behind that position, but I also think it’s a bunch of semantics tailor-fit to evade hard questions. Can we drop the semantics?
“Don’t call me stupid just because I have no idea what I am arguing for or against! ”
So, correct your stupidity instead of wallowing in it.
Briane #133
Ever stop to think that biblical morality is nothing but the morality that existed 2,500 years ago when they were first written down by Jewish scribes. With all the tribal interests, arbitrary rules, and barbaric punishments of the time? The problem with old rules, if not updated by new evidence, is that they get out of step with reality.
Being an atheist allows one to do what any quality system requires. Update the rules to deal with reality, and improve the situation.
You sound like you want to discriminate against some people based on imagufactured data.
lol Jackie. i don’t owe you any fucking apology, you’re the one in the wrong. and quite frankly i’ve had enough of your doubling down on your ableist comments. it’s disgusting. i don’t give a damn if this community is cool with your ableism just because its directed at the “right” person, that shows on them, not me. there’s a reason i give the finger to movement atheism, and it’s exactly because of such smarmy, arrogant bullshit. christ, lecturing ME on my morality, pretending you’re the ones who have something to teach ME about decent behaviour, all the while casually participating and abetting bigotry. piss off, i’m out.
Nate Sasta #126
I find that questionable. I think a lot of it is explained by elitism. Many atheists pride themselves on their superior intellect (real or imagined) and don’t want to throw their lot in with the rabble. If they’re male, they might have some problem with feminism too, but that doesn’t mean they are really spending a lot of time thinking about things like a living wage or universal access to healthcare (if e.g., they’ve got their college degree, a nice salary, and health coverage). As PZ says, these issues are off the map.
When you consider how many human beings are going to remain religious because it is simply an important part of their culture and family tradition, the question of atheist social justice either has to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude towards believers or else… honestly if I propose an alternative it would be a strawman (one alternative was the former Soviet Union, and yes that’s a strawman–better proposals are welcome).
So I think a big obstacle to taking up social justice issues with vigor is really the fact that you will not primarily be working in support of like-minded people or even people with a similar upbringing. Many of them will disagree with you strongly on the atheist bit in particular, and this may be hard to accept for some (not everyone).
Feminism may also be an issue. I just don’t see how you conclude that it is the primary one.
it’s not that it should have no consequences, its that it doesn’t.
You’re still wrong, as I already pointed out: atheism has real consequences for those who embrace it, arising both from the circumstances of their choice, and from the actions it led to or prevented, and from the consequences of those actions on themselves and others.
There are plenty of atheists, all over the world, who have told stories of what made them become atheists, and how it affected their values and choices. Those are FACTS, and you contradict those facts when you falsely assert that atheism doesn’t matter.
You may have made the choice to become an atheist in a sheltered bubble where nothing was affecting your life before or after the decision; but others did not, and you are denying the meaning of their choices. Short answer: moral and ethical choices matter, and atheism affects (and is affected by) moral and ethical choices. Your refusal to acknowledge this obvious fact shows blatant dishonesty and possibly moral cowardice.
Feminism may also be an issue. I just don’t see how you conclude that it is the primary one.
Gee, I dunno, maybe we conclude that based on the sheer volume of mindless uncontrollable hate that gets directed at feminism, and women in general, by the anti-SJW atheists, day after day after day for years on end, with no sign of slowing down.
Don’t let the screen door hit ya where evolution split ya, Briane.
It’s the preponderance of evidence. All the most vicious and sustained hate for social justice in the atheist community began with “Guys, don’t do that”.
Donnie @32:
This ^^^.
Briane doesn’t see the difference between PZ saying “this is what people ought to do” and “I command you to do what I say”.
****
btw, Briane it would be helpful if you’d use the blockquote function when responding to people. To do so,
<blockquote> place text to be quoted here</blockquote>
results in
Also, as a courtesy to others, and to make comments easier to follow, please include the nym (and preferably the comment number) of the person you’re responding to (Nerd, I wish you’d do the same).
****
Does tsig identify as male?
****
Briane @49:
The “movement” isn’t a pile of dung. There are elements in the movement that are shitty yes. There is racism. There is homophobia. There is transphobia. There is misogyny.
There are also a lot of people (many of whom are in this thread) who are opposed to all of that and who stand up and say “I’m an atheist who advocates for social justice issues”.
You are in over your head and haven’t given sufficient critical thought to the issues people are discussing. That, or you’re drunk. Either way, you’d do yourself a big favor if you went and actually thought critically about what people are saying to you.
Don’t think that’s going to happen though.
@57:
Really?
Let’s take Hypothetical Theist P. Based on hir religion, P believes:
that gay people are sinful, immoral abominations
that women should not teach men
that women should be subservient to men
that you shouldn’t dance
that you shouldn’t drive
that you shouldn’t sing
that you shouldn’t consume mind-altering substances
that corporal punishment is A-ok
that the world was created in 6 days
that creationism is right and true
that you shouldn’t have sex before marriage
Then something changes in P. Xe rejects the existence of any deity. What then of the above beliefs? Those beliefs were derived from or strongly supported by hir religious beliefs. Without those theistic beliefs, P ought to reexamine hir beliefs to see if there is any justification for them.
This is what is meant by there are logical implications to atheism. Just as there are implications to god-beliefs (someone who just believes in a god and doesn’t belong to any particular religious system of belief
still holds a false belief about the nature of reality–that’s an implication to their god-belief).
Also, why do you think using idiot is an example of ableism?
@85:
Really? You have proof that the entire atheist world has informed us that we’re wrong? We’re part of that atheist world, both online and in meatspace. You’re demonstrably wrong. Which is nothing new for you.
1-you haven’t been threatened with a ban. This being PZ’s blog, he is the only one who can ban you. Quit your whining.
2-Speaking of which, do you have a favorite cheese to go with all that whine?
3-Do you understand what the word ought means? It’s a very important word in this discussion.
@95:
You can’t even aim your insults with precision. You’re casting a wide net with that insult, including a lot of people who do a lot of good things. Yes, the atheist movement has a problem with sexism, misogyny, ableism (still waiting to see your justification for “idiot” being ableist), homophobia, and transphobia. And there are people-many of whom are posting in this thread-who oppose that bullshit. You’re treating everyone in the movement as if they’re all the same.
I know for a fact that a great many people are nothing like assholes like Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or the Pitters.
@97:
Still having a problem with the word “ought” I see. I don’t think you’ll find anyone here denying that some atheists reach their own conclusions. What people are telling you is that some of those conclusions are wrong or not very well thought out. And we have the right to do that, every bit as much as you have the right to continue your bald faced lies and assertions all in the name of rejecting the idea of ethical implications to rejecting god-belief.
Those atheists who reject religion ought to reexamine their beliefs. Upon reexamination, those atheists ought to reject those beliefs that are harmful.
@101:
We’re trying to have the argument, but people like you continue refusing to do so.
Also, what’s the ideological bias you speak of?
Oh, and once again, you miss the point. People are arguing that non-believers OUGHT to reach a certain set of conclusions as a result of their atheism.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why must you construct, then knock down and burn to a crisp all these poor strawpeople?
Why must you whine about imaginary ableism rather than engage with the substance of what people are saying?
@105:
Yup. We know and acknowledge the existence of people like that (atheist libertarians are a thing–“I don’t believe in god” combined with “I’ve got mine. Fuck you” is not unheard of, sadly). We also advocate for people to NOT reach that conclusion. For people to not be selfish, immoral assholes who are unconcerned with the lives of others.
****
savant @68:
I’m pretty sure Briane will probably continue denying that there are any consequences to atheism.
@100:
Welcome in. If you’re in the mood for socializing, feel free to join us in the Lounge. It’s a safe, social space where we can talk about whatever we want, provided we do so kindly. Multiple discussions happen concurrently, so feel free to dip in and talk about what you want. You won’t be interrupting anything.
You can do the same in the Thunderdome, which is also an open thread for the discussion of whatever you want, but here you don’t have to be kind.
****
rq @102:
Yes, you won a prize. Unfortunately it got burnt to a crisp during Briane’s burning of all teh straw.
tsig @117:
No you fool.
No one has said that you’re not an atheist if you don’t believe in or follow a certain set of rules. People are saying there are logical implications to not believing in a deity and that those implications OUGHT to lead you to being concerned with advancing the cause of social justice. This isn’t rocket science!
You’re even less ready for this discussion than Briane.
I want to point out that Briane specifically used Dawkins as an example of an atheist that is just a little too far right.
Dawkins. The guy who mocked a rape victim on Twitter. The guy who started the ongoing anti-feminist backlash that has resulted in outright terrorism right here on this blog. The guy who then tried to get Rebecca Watson fired for calling him out. The guy who compared being stuck in an elevator at 4am with a strange dude who wants you to fuck him even though he knows you are not interested in fucking strange men as being in an elevator with a person chewing gum.
Yes, it’s about feminism.
Correction: Not fired as much a blacklisted by refusing to speak anywhere she was invited.
Briane @125:
You think that there is no consequence to rejecting a belief in a deity who created the universe?
Do you not recognize that there are a host of beliefs that accompany most religions? Religion is more than people sitting around saying “god exists”. There are a host of beliefs attached to god-belief. What happens to those beliefs upon rejecting god-belief?
@133:
Yes. Ethics and morality come from humanity, rather than from a god on high. When you reject god-belief, this is a conclusion you ought to come to pretty damn quickly. See, a conclusion reached as a result of rejecting belief in deities. That wasn’t so hard now.
I *almost* want to give you a cookie.
Aw, Briane go bye bye?
Will xe keep to the flounce? Inquiring minds want to know.
Some atheists are rapists you guys! Are you saying rapists can’t be atheists?!?!?!?!?!?!
Some of us choose to lie, cheat, steal and abuse. We talk in movie theaters! We pinch babies! We borrow books from the library and get Cheetos dust on the pages! That’s our individual choice and in no way should be called out as bad behavior that is not in line with consistent use of reason and facts. Life’s not fair and we like it that way! Don’t try to slow our roll, hippies. We atheists do what we want. You’re making us look bad by saying that we should want to not be anything by raw, unadulterated evil.
/s
PaulBC @143:
I’m not making a conclusion. I don’t know of any studies to support this. As I said, this is just in my experience. If you read atheist blog comments or comments on social media, this seems to be the most rabid subject of discord. Sometimes racism as well, but among atheists, by far MRA arguments are what I see the most.
Tony! @ 149
Wiki article.
“Idiot” “moron” and “imbecile” are all formerly medical terminology for people with developmental disabilities.
Clearly, these should be the leading speakers at every atheist event.
http://mimg.ugo.com/200809/24423/simon-and-hecubus.jpg
its a perfectly logical outcome for an atheist to seek to further his own interests through being a shitface. he has different goals than you, and he’s serving his own.
Actually, being a shitface is NOT all that logical for social animals like humans. That’s just something selfish idiots say to justify their own shortsightedness and lack of self-discipline.
That would be a great new billboard for AA:
“Atheists are frequently shitheads without God! Don’t you tell us what to do! We’re selfish and greedy and we don’t care who we hurt! Muhahahahahaaaaa!”
I’m sure we’ll start seeing more atheist parents treated fairly in custody battles and more atheists being elected to office with a motto like that. We sure won’t be accused of only having nefarious motives anytime we stand up for separation of church and state. Nope. Surely not.
/s
Jackie:
I don’t know how you do it, but you continually amaze me with your awesomeness.
Sigh.. Will the real atheist Galahad please stand up! Not satisfied with being a mere member of the atheist round table, our dear Briane must be the most chaste, and true of them all. And… after all the others are all so much less “pure” than he is… Right?
This does seem to be his argument, or am I wrong somehow? Because, near as I can tell, the halfwit seems to actually think we are on the side of Dawkins, and the like, or something. Has he even bothered to read anything here, or did he just ride in at the last minute and imagine he saw Lancelot tupping Guinevere?
This has got to be some sort of joke I am not getting, right?
Tony,
Thanks. I look up to you very much. So, that is an amazing compliment.
I disagree that idiot etc. are slurs but if that is a standard we want to accept, let me know and I will refrain.
Jackie @164:
I thought ‘idiot’ was divorced enough from its original usage to be a fair insult, but like you, I’ll follow the consensus.
Jackie @160: I do wonder about that sort of thing every time someone goes so far out of his* way to remind everyone that being an atheist has no consequence at all. If someone like Briane really thinks atheism has no consequence, why is he advertising the insignificance of his beliefs to everyone? If I have a belief that I think has, or should have, no consequence, I generally don’t waste time bothering other people about how inconsequential my belief is. “I have this belief, and I think it has absolutely no meaning or consequence in the real world, and I want to be sure you all agree about how meaningless my belief is. No, really, let me be clear on this…”
_____________________________
* Lazy choice of words, yes, but most of the people doing this seem to be male.
@157 Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy
12 February 2015 at 1:19 pm
Thanks, I was also going to say that, and I was surprised that Tony! did not know that? Anyways, Briane’s point was valid, but Xe was focusing on that one point and not all the other points that were germane onto the argument. Xe was using that as an excuse to engage. IMO
To all, I would like to say thanks for the responses. After reading the responses, it is clear to anyone who wishes to learn, what Atheism means – especially if you reject a deity. Briane had it with the response at #133
The level of dissonance that is moving in Xe head is amazing. The only conclusion that I can come to is that there are ethics that Briane considers acceptable. what they are?
– Women are inferior to man, or is it the Dawkins “Western women shut up until you experience FGM. Then, you have something to gripe about?”
– Black lives do not matter, or is it the Fereguson and Eric Gartner of, “the police killed him because he was breaking the law. Had he followed the law, orders, and not be such a thug then both would be alive?”
– Gay people should not get married, or is the “Ewww….butt sex? Muff divers? Kissing? Besides, evolution and natural selection says that stuff is wrong because the species cannot survive?”
These are the conclusions that I come to with Briane based upon Xe’s statements, and rejection of A+ and social justice?
I thought ‘idiot’ was divorced enough from its original usage to be a fair insult…
It is, and has been for as long as I can remember. People stopped calling developmentally-disabled persons “idiots” long ago, precisely because it had been turned into a common epithet. And because it wasn’t descriptive enough for professional usage. Briane was only screaming about “ableism” to change the subject away from a losing argument.
I wasn’t attempting to argue that “idiot” necessarily is a slur. I do, however, feel that enough people have a problem with it that it’s not worth fighting for its continued use. I also don’t believe for an instant that Briane gives a rat’s fart whether we use it or not. It was just a bludgeon to beat us over the head with in the absence of anything resembling a coherent argument. Which is, obviously, ableist in itself. So there’s that.
For the record though, there are still several states with laws on the books barring “idiots” from voting so it’s maybe not as divorced from it’s original usage as we might think.
Seven @157:
You are cherry-picking the definition. From the article (emphasis mine):
none belief is a kind of conclusion and it very much depends on how it is arrived at or where the starting point was and the steps involved what kind it is.
It is not an ultimate conclusion any more than is general relativity E= MC2. It is but a step and has by its very nature other implications. Those implications can have their source with the starting point.
My staring point was a desire to understand “life the universe and everything” it was also guided by a compassion and love of this “life the universe and everything”. That included the feeling of the underlying equality of everything and all the people the realization of the absolute connectedness of every thing.
I suspect that many on the other side of the deep rifts may have been led there by a much more egocentric path to reach a more nihilistic conclusion. That there is no right or wrong nor good or bad that it all makes no difference at all. So I can do what I want anyone who thinks otherwise is a a big fuck you.
It is profoundly humbling to realize that in all probability there is no all loving sky parent holding you in his hand in this vastness it can also be deeply frightening.
One response to fear that works a little is anger and hostility it does not solve it however and in the end is self destructive.
I get the response on the other side of the deep rifts but I do not know what to do about it.
uncle frogy
Nate Sastra @ 170
At no point did I claim that medical terminology was the original or only use of those words. It is, however, the basis for why some people consider it ableist. Which is what Tony! was asking.
For the record though, there are still several states with laws on the books barring “idiots” from voting…
I’m willing to bet such laws can be overturned for being “unconstitutionally vague.” In fact, I’d be surprised if that hasn’t already happened.
I haven’t read even a quarter of the thread so apologies in advance but it just struck me that… if dictionary atheists are so insistent that there is nothing hat flows from their atheism aside from “I don’t believe in a god”, why are they visiting atheist blogs and sites in the first place??? What do they expect to read?
(I really do suspect it’s the whole “feeling superior” vibe for many of them but it just struck me that every time someone criticizes an atheist group’s position on the grounds that atheism is nothing but the dictionary definition, they may have defeated their own criticism already depending on why they looked for and found that group/blog/community in the first place.)
Somehow separation of church and state is an atheist cause but treating women and trans individuals like equals is a affront to the purity of vacuous non-philosophy.
It’s crystal clear what really bothers them about social justice.
People pandering to their own sense of superiority.
Oops, left out a word. That should read “…purity of their vacuous…”
RobertWilson#174,
I suspect that most of the dictionary atheists are misogynists/RWA/liberturd types who are afraid if the atheist movement becomes synonymous with social justice, they would have to fall in line. Or to put it more the case, they think [insert any female] is telling them what to do and how to behave.
Nate Sasta
Nah, if you listen to them for a while you’ll hear the full spectrum of dogwhistles. They’ve got a particular bug up their ass about feminists (and women generally), but they aren’t notable fond of PoCs, GLBT folks, etc. either.
Sorry for the disjointedness of the following. I’m under some time pressure and don’t have time to smooth out the transitions.
1) Saying there isn’t AN atheist community isn’t the same as saying there aren’t atheist communities. There are many atheist communities, some more closely related than others. I think it saying there is AN atheist community misses the mark about as widely as saying there is A theist community.
2) Atheism has a specific meaning and it has an ethical implication. That implication is that atheists must come to their ethical framework without resort to supernatural explanations. I don’t see where atheism has any ethical implications beyond that. As far as I can see, other than that atheists and theists are in exactly the same boat as far as to what their societal obligations ought to be.
3) I am not arguing that humans don’t have an obligation to form an ethical framework, just that atheism doesn’t logically lead to one such framework or even a narrow grouping of similar frameworks. All attempts I have seen to force such a logical conclusion founder on the same circular reasoning and boat load of assumptions that theists have foundered on for centuries.
4) Many of the arguments about what atheism ought to mean seem to be that atheism ought to mean secular humanism with a strong social justice component. I agree that we should try to foster these values in atheist communities and more I think we should try and instill humanist and social justice ethics into society as a whole. I just don’t see this as a logical extension of atheism and I don’t see that expanding the meaning of atheism has much value. I think the argument is much better made that our obligations as humans (rather than atheist humans) lead to humanism and social justice. That has the added benefit of being something that can bring along the theist majority with us.
5) As I’ve said elsewhere, I used to think that this was easier for atheists since we don’t have to overcome the baggage of religious assumptions. I am considerably less certain of this now. Society has loaded all of us down with enough unchecked assumptions that I don’t know that it is whole lot easier for atheists to logically assess them. For some, Harris and Dawkins to name two, it seems to have made it more difficult as they are convinced that their rationality on the topic of gods has freed them from their irrationality on other topics.
PS I would love to see or be directed to a step by step logical argument that leads directly from atheism to secular humanism and social justice without circular logic or too many added assumptions if that exists anywhere.
@robertwilson #174
I would guess that it is because atheist blogs and atheist communities are more than just atheism.
Grewgills#180
I doubt if anybody has a pure philosophical way to get there.
I’m a scientist, and use what works, rather than worrying about metaphysical purity.
Once gods are ignored, and the holy books for those gods, you are right there are no road signs. Axioms are needed. But they don’t need to be, and shouldn’t, be derived in a vacuum. For those engaged in freethinking, empirical evidence is the key. If you ignore empirical evidence, and follow your biases, you can end up in the misogyny/liberturd/RWA end of atheism.
With solid and good empirical evidence, you can ask questions like, is there any legitimate reason women/POC/GLBT should be considered second class citizens. The answer is a resounding NO. So an axiom becomes all humans are members of your tribe, and should be considered and treated with the proper respect and dignity.
Continue this to other things. Should everybody have access to decent health care at low or no cost? [Yes] Should there be a social safety net so people out of work are supported until they find another job? [Yes] And so forth. And you end up like me, a progressive who some call a social justice warrior, even if I’m just an old, bald fat man still working.
@Grewgills
Yes but how do atheists who don’t think atheism should lead to anything else always seem to find those atheist blogs that happen to talk about other things they might be interested in? (The answer is, I think, obvious and defeats the nonsensical objection that some dictionary atheists so strongly put forward).
@180, Grewgills
Well said. I’m glad to see multiple people here who have similar conclusions to my own.
Though I’m a bit more optimistic about the probabilities of people being good if they are atheists VS is they are theists. Though that probability is still too low to be content with.
Take 3 on this topic. Still reading it, but side note –
Then say THAT, you lazy, willfully ignorant, ableist asshole.
http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/11/ableist-word-profile-idiot/
Briene’s right about that. It’s 101 stuff, and no, you shouldn’t allow these slurs to be leveled against you either.
I think perhaps it would be best to move further discussion of words that may or may not be ableist into the Thunderdome, since it’s a derail.
@robertwilson #183
I’ve been agnostic for a while and have over the past decade or so leaned more and more atheist. As you can see from my comment above I don’t think atheism does in and of itself lead to much other than the necessity of finding ones way absent arguing from supernatural authority. I think being human comes with obligations, but my opinion on that has been pretty steady on that since I was a theist of sorts. I’m not sure if you’d classify me as one of those atheists that don’t think atheism should lead to anything.
I found pharyngula through my wife and she found it the same way anyone finds a website that has people with similar interests. I originally read PZ on scienceblogs. I read him more for his science posts than anything. I’ve been reading on and off, honestly more off than on, since then.
@Nerd #182
I came to similar conclusions before I was atheist or even agnostic. Other than your first point about there being no logical reason to treat any ethnic, gender, etc grouping as second class citizens you haven’t shown your work.
Empirical evidence is far from conclusive that there needs to be universal health care, a robust social safety net, or any of a host of other mainly progressive issues that I suspect we largely agree on. From a utilitarian perspective I think the evidence probably favors those things, depending on how you manage the weighting, but managing the weighting for any calculation that includes human well being and personal freedoms is tricky at best. I like to think that my positions are rationally founded. I do research and have worked to come to an ethic that I think is kind, just and equitable. That said, I am just as susceptible to poorly questioned or missed biases as any other human and some of my reasoning and my foundational assumptions are no doubt flawed.
man I just read #188 and do not have any idea what you mean by empirical evidence does not exist for universal healthcare and a strong social safety net but from a utilitarian perspective the evidence favors them.
that a fair number of people need those things or will “fall through the cracks” without them meaning they will suffer and die without help seems to be a fact all you have to do is look out in the street in any big city in the world you will find people who need help. the question does not seem to be is it true but do we do something or let them suffer and die?
one of the ideas that led me to finally drop belief was the realization that hierarchical distinctions between people was pretty arbitrary and it varied between societies and over time re-enforcing it’s arbitrariness. All people men and women are the same and equal, and many gods could not all be right but more accurately must describe a people rather than any fundamental reality. liberty, equality and fraternity lead to no gods which leads no priests and it then follows to no kings
uncle frogy
Others have dealt with the incoherent, perpetually self-contradictory mess that Briane has left behind, but i wanted to address this just for fun:
@125 Briane
See, you are wrong. Of course there are consequences, are you fucking kidding me? Are you putting teeth under your pillow? Do you suspect that missing change has been stolen by tiny humanoids? No….you fucking don’t…you know why? Because your absence of belief in those things has consequences to how you act, consequences that result in taking different actions and having different motivations than you would if you did believe in those things. Just because you are not doing anything in your life that has anything to do with fairies it doesn’t mean your lack of belief in them has no consequences….THAT’S THE FUCKING CONSEQUENCE.
It’s the same with not believing in gods….it means that you have to live your life differently, because your perspective is different, and that’s going to impact EVERYTHING. Nobody is saying that atheism is the ONLY thing that impacts how you make decissions, we are saying it’s one of the many, many, maaaaaaaaany things that do, but it happens to be one thing that we actually bothered to use as an identification, that actually says a lot about us. It says we reject religious believes. If you still think that rejecting religious believes has NO consequences and that it happens in a vaccuum, you are indeed being an idiot.
Atheism without consequences, in a vaccuum, is meaningless. It’s not even a word…it’s like spiritual…a fucking useless series of letters. For atheism to mean something it has to be put in the context of everything else that impacts a person’s meantal proceses. My atheism means something only if it relates to my naturalism, and my skepticism, and my biological nature as a social creature….And when it is related to all of that and more, it turns out that it means that in order to make moral judgements and evaluations, i need to make them within an atheistic context, where there are no arsehole gods dictating what i should or shouldn’t do. It’s up to me to develop that morality whithin the context of all my believes AND my lacks of belief. I’m not going to make moral judgements based on how it impacts fairies or leprechauns, nor am i going to make them based on what some god supossedly wants. You have to be really fucking botuse to think the kind of reality you accept has no consequences to the decissions you make….
Nope, it is conclusive, when you compare the effects of not having those programs in place and working compared to having working programs in place. The invisible hand only helps those with money, usually obtained via inheritance.
I’m not a philosopher, and don’t think highly of subject. Too much waffling gets in the way of being able to make decisions.
tsig @ 117:
No*, but there are things you have to believe and do to be a decent human being.
However, some atheists get that people often cause suffering by not being decent to one another. And, as an atheist, they can (and should) should get that there’s no great outside force forcing any of those people to be less-than-decent to each other. And some atheists get that suffering is, generally speaking, bad. And they get that the world is better without it.
And, more to the point, they get that if they are causing suffering by being less-than-decent to other people, they have no-one to blame for that but themselves.
So, the primary thing being an atheist makes you do is recognize that if you are not being a decent human being, it’s your fault, and within your power to change. Wanting to, well, that’s a different matter.
Some atheists get it.
Hey, someone should start a thread like that!
*(Well, of course, you have to not believe in god(s). But that’s pretty much it.)
Grewgills @ 180:
Personally speaking, I would like to see or be directed to anything at all that demonstrates that human society actually operates on step by step logical arguments without circular logic or too many added assumptions if that exists anywhere.
Failing that, I’d like to be see or be directed to anything at all that demonstrated the relevance of such step by step arguments if that’s not the way the world actually works.
guardianeighty,
Left something for you in the Thunderdome.
I have news for ya. If you can’t just do that on your own, you have a problem. You just stated that there is no logical reason not to be a racist, etc. You just stated that you cannot even imagine how a person could go from “There are no gods” to “We must come up with our morals based on fact, reason and simple human compassion”. You just let us know that unless we draw it out for you, you won’t understand why it makes sense not to harm other people or stand by idly and allow them to be harmed.
That’s scary.
So the reason for social justice is merely circular logic and added assumptions.
Would you care to point them out. I’d be very interested in knowing what you think they are.
I’ll bet you consider someone’s equality to merely be an assumption. I bet it is not yours or people like you.
Citation please. Tell us why people should starve on the streets for being laid off or fired. Tell us why the poor should suffer and die for being poor.
Tell us plainly what other progressive issues are not important and what precisely what SJ issue you do not agree with.
For the cold of heart, here is a good reason for health care access for all:
Productivity. Many people are only able to work due to medical intervention. Be it a knee surgery, insulin, meds for mental health issues or medication for ADD, what keeps people healthy keeps them working.
A reason for a social safety net:
If the choice is watch my kids die in squalor or rob the homes of people like you and sell crack, I will. I won’t be alone. I bet you’d do the same. People do not die quietly without inconveniencing the comfortable. When guns are plentiful and food, education and housing is not shit is going to get real with a quickness.
Healthcare costs US vs world:
Emphasis me. The free market is expensive compared to publically funded healthcare.
US healthcare results ranked last compared to ten other first world countries with publically funded health care.
So there is overwhelming evidence that the free market fails in medical care, and socialized medicine works; socialized medicine is cheaper and gives better results. Empirical data, not slogans from an ideology.
@unclefroggy
You left out the word conclusive, which rather matters.
@Nerd
The words universal and robust matter. In every system people fall through the cracks. Very few people in the Western industrial world are arguing against the existence of any healthcare for those that can’t afford it or against any social safety net. The questions are matters of degree, ie how robust is the net. Where should the top marginal tax rate be? How should various income streams be taxed? Fairness, economic growth, and maximizing income to pay for needed/wanted projects have to be balanced. When we have our limited pot of money to spend. How robust is it practical to make the net? What is the best way to implement it with as few negative externalities as possible.* What is the best way to implement the most universal healthcare that we can afford etc. These questions are not near so easy as people are making them out to be.
* A universal minimum income would be my current preference in the US.
@Anri #193
People claimed that certain ethics were the logical outflow of atheism. If it is, people should be able to show their work. My opinion on the matter is pretty clearly stated earlier. I don’t think atheism necessarily logically leads there. I think wanting to be a good and ethical human being leads there, but not in a completely logic derived way.
@Jackie #195 etc
Try reading what I have actually written in this thread rather than building up a straw man to knock down. Your knee jerk assumptions about what I do and do not support are contradicted by a plain reading of what I have written in this thread and parallel threads on similar topics in the past couple of days.
Grewgills #188:
I would argue that universal health care is a major part of the definition of ‘civilisation.’ The well-being of all citizens should be a bedrock-principle of society. (Feel free to join me in a chorus of The Red Flag.)
@Nerd 199
While I agree that health care in the US is delivered inefficiently and that we don’t cover those who cannot afford it nearly as well as we can, but the reasons for the differences between health care in the US and Europe are MUCH more complex than the last step of delivery.
There are two PRIMARY reasons for the difference in cost between the US and Europe. The first is end of life care. In the US spending on health care of people under 65 is not a whole lot different than it is in most European countries. US costs begin to skyrocket after 65. (Cancer care in the US is also considerably more aggressive than in most of Europe.)
The other big cost driver in US healthcare cost is human resources. Look at the number of doctors and nurses per 100,000 in the US and Europe, particularly at the number of GPs. Medical education in the US is one of the primary drivers here. There need to be more medical schools and getting a few Bs in college shouldn’t disqualify you from entry. Doctors shouldn’t have to take on a burden of 100s of thousands of dollars in debt before they can practice. The incentives in place for medical education should be much more strongly aimed to GPs rather than specialists. That would go a fair way towards increasing supply and so costs. Decreasing costs to enter the field can also act to reduce end of line prices. That aspect of medical inflation in the US has been almost completely ignored.
Letting the government use it’s bargaining power when purchasing pharmaceuticals would be another big step in price reduction. There are other factors at play in increased US costs, but those are the biggest. Tackling those head on would be a good way to reduce costs and therefor increase ability to cover more people more equitably.
The ACA model for universal care is, I think, most similar to the Dutch model. There are certainly other models and there are relative benefits and drags on all of them.
There is considerably more, but I have to rush to work.
@195, Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
ugh, just no. Why is this so difficult for people? (oh, I know why, it’s because the position/word game that PZ and you seem to side with has confusion built in as a feature! Good Job)
One can very easily “understand why it makes sense not to harm other people or stand by idly and allow them to be harmed” and yet not see how atheism leads to those things in any significant way.
Just like one can very easily “understand why it makes sense not to harm other people or stand by idly and allow them to be harmed” and yet not see how not believing in bigfoot leads to those things in any significant way.
(The argument from the supposed moral significance of god seems backwards to me)
———-
And I don’t think it matters what atheism leeeeds to, anyways. That’s a total red herring as far as I’m concerned, and a very weak one at that. Video game playing doesn’t leeeed to humanism either, and we still need to make the gaming community better and more egalitarian, now don’t we?
just ignore the part about bigfoot. The important point is that one can easily have good values and still not see how atheism leads to those values.
Stop accusing everyone who doesn’t see the connection as being fucking immoral scary people.
Grewgills @ 201:
I’m sorry, just where was that again?
I can’t claim to have read every word of all of the above posts over again, but I did give the thread a re-look. I found lots of people talking about implications of atheism, and making the point that theoretically one could separate atheism from moral behavior on the individual or societal level… and then making the further point that that’s not how things work in the real world.
But, really, if you can quote someone upthread stating that social justice is a fully logical inescapable consequence of atheism, I’ll be happy to take a look. And I’ll likely disagree with whomever said that.
If, on the other hand, you can’t actually show where someone said that, it might be that you got that impression mistakenly.
And except for those constructing straw men to champion Dictionary Atheism, that appears to be the general belief of those in this thread. You’ll see a whole lot of people talking about what atheism should lead to, and then bemoaning the fact that it often doesn’t. You can’t say that if you think it’s an inescapable conclusion.
Grewgills:
What is that supposed to add to the meaning? Some options:
(1) You personally haven’t concluded that
(2) It’s not possible to conclude that
(3) It’s not “absolutely certain” or “proven” to be a correct conclusion
(4) The evidence which everyone has (not just you) does not in fact support the conclusion
If it’s number 4, which is at least reasonable, what the fuck makes you say that?
A theistic god is an intelligent supernatural agent. If there’s no such thing, they don’t act in the world, meaning the world is not what it would be if they existed. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader….. Just kidding, but you’re a disingenous fuck, you know that?
For instance, they don’t guide things, teleologically, toward a particular future outcome. That means that if you thought a god wanted things to be a certain way (perhaps just as they are now, which is the “best”) and there was nothing anybody could do about it, then it’s not moral to try to change things. Because should implies can: if there were nothing we could do about X, there couldn’t be any moral obligation or even the slightest motivation to try (and inevitably fail) to do X anyway, no matter how beneficial it might be if it were possible. (As things are generally possible as well as obligatory/worthwhile/etc., since gods don’t exist, obviously.)
Along the same lines, you might think a god created this planet, its resources, animals/plants, women, black/brown people, aliens, robots or other technological/creative works, or anything at all, in order for “us” (the chosen people or a superior race, white males, smart people, rich people, etc.) to use in any way “we” might want. We’re the special ones, and this “other” exists so that we can have our way with it. So while the god may not directly force things to be a certain way no matter what we might want to do, because it might have control over anything in the whole scheme of the universe, it could in some way have stacked the deck in “our” favor (or against us, if you’re feeling pessimistic). Anything like that obviously would have ethical implications. However, this is not at all to say that it would therefore be okay to mistreat women (for example) if they had all gotten a bad hand in life, but knowing that as a fact would mean we’d have to rethink how we act toward and about them. We would clearly need to have different moral considerations about such things than we would if they were not the case. (And in fact they’re not, because gods don’t in fact exist…. seeing a pattern yet?)
Generally, it’s a fucking fact, and it’s fucking relevant. Whatever the fact is in any situation, you need to argue that it couldn’t be morally relevant at all. Because that’s far from obvious, even in the case of extremely mundane facts that don’t have such universal implications as a big fucking powerful super-being that created everything. Fuck, just think about it for even a minute, and you should be able to connect a couple of fucking dots yourself.
You don’t think it necessarily leads “there”? Where is that? You apparently had something in mind already, so what was it and why not even say a single fucking thing about it specifically? Shouldn’t you have some manner of argument, with at least some level of detail, if you’re going to make actual claims like this? For the record, I don’t give a fuck what your vague, ignorant opinion might be, if that’s all you’ve really got.
Grewgills
all you said is how many people could we afford to let suffer and die to keep the status quo working.
why would anyone who found themselves on the other side of that cut off feel any obligation to support it?
how is making some cost benefit analysis of a social safety net not saying “let them eat cake” to the left out? All said in the nice abstract language of academic economics of course.
uncle frogy
@grewgills, #201:
Then you exactly in alignment with PZ and others on this matter. What makes you think your opinion is all special snowflake?
PZ says it has real world implications that we aren’t living in a universe of magic sky fairies who rescue us from our own mistakes and tragedies if only we click our heels together and say, “There’s no god but my god,” 3 times fast.
It does have real world implications. He also says that implies answers to questions about the values of certain behaviors. And it does.
It doesn’t tell us what our goals should be – that’s the logical leap and that’s your reservation – but once we have goals, it very much helps us decide whether an action will help, hurt or leave unaffected our attempts to reach a certain goal.
You’re not smarter than the other people here. You don’t have a unique position. What you have is a limited understanding of what PZ’s actually saying because you were unable to parse, “X implies” from “X logically entails”.
While in a philosophy class “X implies” might be contextually synonymous with “X logically entails” we aren’t in PHL 207 Predicate Logic.
Moreover, if you’d taken PHL 311 Logical Semantics, you’d know that.
@Anri
Several people made comments in this thread and the two others on similar topics (all over 100 comments in now) that led me to believe that was exactly their position. It’s to big a PITA now to go back through and find each one. If we agree on that general point though then we agree and there isn’t much argument left.
@unclefroggy #209
Only if you try to parse my argument in the worst possible light.
@CripDyke #210
I’m not that far off from what PZ initially stated in the other thread and don’t disagree with what he said in this thread at all. I don’t think what he said should be limited to atheist communities and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t either. All the way up at comment #10 you’ll see that.
Being an atheist does have real world implications. The biggest one of those is the inability to argue from supernatural authority. Where I disagree is that atheism implies answers to major ethical questions and implies values to certain ethical behaviors. I don’t see that implication coming from atheism. The answers that are implied require additional assumptions and those additional assumptions are equally available to theist and atheist alike. Where I think they lead is to humanist answers and most here appear to agree. I think they flow from our shared human condition and shared societies rather than the presence or absence of supernatural beings. Atheists aren’t uniquely better suited to get there and theists don’t get a pass on any of it.
As a practical matter I don’t think atheism helps much in deciding if actions will help us reach particular societal goals in relation to poverty, universal medical care, etc. Certain types of theism can get in the way on gender and sexuality issues, but that isn’t universal to theism and there are plenty of atheists that reach the same backward conclusions.
I don’t think we are much in disagreement over what the oughts should be, just the degree to which atheism moves anyone towards those oughts and the degree to which atheism ought to move people towards those oughts. Humanism is, I think, the way to move us all towards those oughts.
Hmmmm. I really want everyone to have access to a cure for any medical condition that limits their quality or length of life. Should I donate money to Benny Hinn or to a community health care network?
If only atheism provided help in deciding which of these actions will help reach my goal!
Crip Dyke @214:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of PHL 311 Logical Semantics over basic English comprehension. What does third year philosophy have to say about red herrings, or condescension?
GrewGills#188
What work? There is no work.
What you fail to see, being a hyperrationalskeptic *snicker* rationalist, is that if everybody is part of your tribe, then what is needed to make the tribe healthy and thriving? Healthcare, education opportunities, social safety net come immediately to my mind. Why? Without those in place not everybody can thrive if they make decisions that appear bad after the fact about employers and other opportunities. Not all lead to a prosperous and productive career path
GG#200.
Easy, take away your liberturdian dogma, include everybody as YOU would want to be treated, as the real cost isn’t significantly different. Why do you want to punish people, unless you want to be punished for deciding to go with an underfunded and poorly manged start-up, and end up out unemployed on the street for a few years. That where you decide where the safety net is.GG#204
Try a quarter to half million if they go into a specialty. And why is that? Why doesn’t the US do the same thing Europe does, and make higher education essentially free? I was lucky. I had support through grad school, and came out of my eduction essentially debt free. Why should getting a BA/BS require taking on a huge amount of debt. Even more than my first mortgage.
More to come.
GG#211
Oh, you agree with the the fact that if one is an atheist, and decides all humanity is your tribe, there is nothing to prevent you, and it becomes almost mandatory, that becoming a liberal/progressive politically believing in social justice is a foregone conclusion?
@Nerd
1) Yes, there is work or it is just facile assertion.
2) If you think I am anything approaching a libertarian you either don’t know what libertarians are or simply placed your biases in place of what I wrote.
With a median debt of ~180K to come out a GP not including premed and time costs means doctors need to be high earners to pay off that debt. I would support making medical school free if the student agrees to spend at least equal time to their paid education as a GP. If they want to go into a specialty, I’m less sanguine about paying for that. I could support publicly funded scholarships for specialties based on the need for that specialty. Increase the number of doctors, particularly GPs, while reducing their debt and we can have more reasonably priced patient care. We should also expand the allowed roles of nurses at all levels, particularly PAs and NPs along with funding their education and increasing their numbers. The cost to the public of the education will be made up for in decreased public costs for medical care.
I wish it were so and the world would be a better place if it were, but no I don’t agree that that is true.
2 thoughts
I have not heard anywhere the idea that Atheism alone would lead to a more humanistic outlook. There are other ways to get to there I would say that both MLK and Gandhi were guided by the idea of human equality and no where made the calculations of how much suffering could we afford to try to alleviate.
the other thought is one I have had before about some people who post here and complain that they are not understood and are not like they are being characterized in responses here. Well we can only go by what you fucking say no one here certainly not I are able to read minds. If people are getting you wrong than the simple answer is to just say what you really think about the subject and stop playing fucking head games as if this is some kind of intellectual exercise or maybe just shut up.
uncle frogy
@unclefroggy #219
Look up two comments to #217. Others implied similar earlier in this thread and the two others on similar topics.
I gets it now you caint reyd vera well!
it don’t say that atheism alone will lead to humanism it says that atheism can lead to humanism. the modifier alone means that no other idea will lead to humanism which is ridiculous as the examples I suggested of MLK and Gandhi both were religious and neither were concerned with the primacy of their religion but were indeed concerned with humanity .
As some have demonstrated it is possible to not believe in gods and still support the status quo and the values and practices the greater religiously grounded society. some are apparently so well trained as to fail to be able to ask themselves the difficult questions that lead from the realization that there are no gods. It is easier to do that from a privileged position in their society. Change might mean that they might lose their privilege.
uncle frogy
Grewgills @ 211:
Well, we could still argue about your reading comprehension.
Here’s a good example: I didn’t ask, as you suggest, for each instance, I asked you to quote one. To be specific, I said:
(emphasis added)
You appear to be misconstruing what I was saying in a way that made your argument (that I was asking you to do something difficult) work better. And my concern is that this is not the first or only time you’ve done exactly that in this thread.
Of course, you don’t have to do what I ask, and actually quote what you say someone said. But unfortunately, that makes your argument sound a lot like: “I can’t quote it but they totally said it and and anyway arguing is stupid so drop it.”
From the way you write, I suspect you’re smarter than that argument. I think you can do better.
You lack reading comprehension. What I have even acknowledge, is that you do need to make some basic decisions regarding who your tribe is. Things follow from that.
And one thing that doesn’t follow is that economic analysis is needed for every decision. It shouldn’t be a factor in saying whether or not employment benefits work (empirical data says yes). Only rethugs/liberturds/teabaggers are worrying about the cost of the support system, which they really want to limit to those they deem worthy (discrimination and bigotry). We can easily afford an effective safety net, low cost education, and socialized medicine (the savings by doing the latter will pay for a lot of the others). All one has to do is to recognize that a tax increase on higher incomes will take care of that problem. The trouble is, congress follows the golden rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules. they aren’t doing their jobs for all the people.
Grewgills @220,
So your contention is that comment 217 implies that “Atheism alone” would lead to a more humanistic outlook? Really? Here is what @217 actually says with emphasis added for your convenience.
Comment 217 was explicitly about “atheism and” whereas you turned around and claimed that it implies something about “atheism alone.”