How strange…I’m hearing from so many people ranting and raving about how the Reason Rally was a failure, but they’re all people who weren’t there; at the same time, I’m seeing a lot of enthusiastic appreciation from attendees. This wouldn’t be at all odd if it were Christians and Fox News trying to dismiss it, but there’s also a cadre of the usual dedicated anti-SJW atheists also triumphantly declaring the defeat of the Reason Rally.
Here’s the deal: it was a mixed success. It sounds like it was a good event, and the people who went there got what they wanted out of it, but it also had lower attendance than had been hoped for. The accounts I’m seeing suggest that it fell somewhat short of the attendance at the first one, although it was still a healthy turnout.
So what reduced the number of attendees?
Obviously, it’s because I wasn’t invited to speak at this one.
Wait, no, that’s not it. With such a mob of speakers, I’ll be the first to admit I’d be a fairly low-wattage draw.
I’m going to pin the problems on organization and focus. Personally, I didn’t go because the early organization was very frankly a mess — way back in January I was complaining about the slow start and the small number of speakers at that time…and if you’re trying to get large numbers of people to commit to the expense and time of travel, you’ve got to get them enthused early. I just couldn’t. And by the time they got their act together, it was too late for me to make arrangements.
This is fixable. Next time, get a solid core of speakers committed well in advance. Don’t dribble out announcements slowly, over months.
The other problem is focus. This is an atheist event, but a lot of the noise being made ahead of time was about Big Name Celebrities agreeing to speak there, like Johnny Depp and Margaret Cho. That’s nice for getting a blurb in the newspaper, but they have no reputation as atheists, and haven’t spoken much about godlessness, so they were no draw at all to me (although I might have been pleasantly surprised by their talks, if they hadn’t cancelled, which is a whole ‘nother problem). It needed atheists qua atheists, not random celebrities who happen to not believe in gods. If I want to listen to someone talk about atheism, Greta Christina is more of a celebrity than Johnny Depp.
This is also fixable. Start with a solid roster of known atheist speakers first, sign ’em up early (they’re easy, they’ll be enthusiastic for the cause), and then try and get those popular but largely irrelevant celebrities.
So sorry, naysayers. It wasn’t a failure, but there’s room for improvement.
If anti-SJW’s have anything to do with the low turnout, then it’s even more imperative that social issues take precedence, because it’d show that there’s a big bigotry problem in the atheist movement.
I can definitely say that the presence of loud, obnoxious anti-SJ types prevalent in the atheist movement is pretty much the sole reason I have stepped away from outspoken or activist atheism, which just a few years ago felt like home. I would have loved something like the Reason Rally once upon a time. But I don’t think I’d feel at home there anymore.
I don’t understand the anti-SJW’s complaints about the Reason Rally. Don’t they share the same opinions as Richard Dawkins concerning Muslims, feminists, gamer-gate, harassment, and the relative harm of acquaintance rape? Hasn’t Lawrence Krauss defended a wealthy child rapist, and defended accused spouse-abuser Johnny Depp? Hasn’t Penn Jillette called Lindy West the c-word, and then lied about it? Isn’t Rebecca Watson still blacklisted, per Dawkins’ demand, from the event? Isn’t Dave Silverman still working passionately to get conservative Republicans elected, with all the harm that will do to “SJW” causes? Doesn’t Ron Lindsay, on the RR board of directors, still rail against “political correctness”?
Do they want a total blacklisting of feminists, instead of the only-if-it’s-convenient support we now enjoy? What *are* their demands? I could not possibly care less if the Reason Rally succeeds or fails. In the past, I became a passionate supporter of the “new” atheist movement, but I’ve come to realize that I share precious few values with movement leaders. After all, didn’t Richard Dawkins himself imply that as a feminist, my highest priority should be fighting for women’s rights in Islamic countries? So I’ve decided to make that my only focus.
This years Reason Rally was every bit as good as all of the others that I have not attended. I can attest to this on the basis of personal inexperience.
I haven’t seen that many people ranting or raving about the supposed failure of the Reason Rally, but, of those few I have seen, they sure do seem eager to communicate that apparent fact. I watched the Atheist Experience live this week, and at least one of the people in the chatroom spent the first 5-10 minutes repeatedly talking about how it had failed… I get the feeling they wanted to start a conversation/debate about it in the chat, but nobody bit, so far as I saw. I’m kind of confused about why they seem so certain it failed, though. I guess maybe they saw Thunderf00t’s meme and, like good skeptics, trusted that it was verified?
I was tempted to come to this one, but my passport’s expired, I couldn’t get the time off, and the idea of setting foot on American soil terrifies me… which probably isn’t very rational, but whatever. I think I’m more likely to go to QED if I ever go to a con.
I was at the Washington Folk Festival in Glen Echo both days, and some cops on duty there were downtown at RR the day before and commenting how easy it was to deal with. They ended up getting into a discussion of how much more ‘fun’ the Rally to Restore Reason and/or Fear (Stewart/Colbert, 2010) was in comparison…but still how much more sense it made than any of the right-wing rallys they sometimes have to deal with.
What the heck do liberal views or SJ issues have to do with the promotion of atheism? Let those stand or fall on their own merits, but not piggyback on those of us who have been hurt by religion, and need and want to see our society be secular. I snowbird, and was seriously considering going by Washington, D.C., but the focus off of atheism and on to SJ issues turned me right off.
Stay focused, stay on message, and let other issues for those whose passions are there. If there are atheists who feel strongly about some SJ issues, great…. go volunteer there. But leave our thing alone.
We are. If you deign to call yourself an atheist, be a GOOD PERSON, which means for social justice, not bigotry and misogyny.
skeptic @7, I have several questions for you. I’m genuinely curious.
First, when you say “leave our thing alone,” what is your thing, specifically? How did you come to own this thing? Who else owns it?
Second, in light of the fact that so many religious views are illiberal and anti-secular, why are liberal views or SJ issues not also secular issues?
Third, how is that because you have been hurt by religion you get to dictate what should and what should not be fought for? If I state that I too was hurt by religion and I say we should fight for liberal and SJ values as part of promoting atheism, why is my vote not equal to yours?
Fourth, and finally, from where do you derive your authority or expertise to decide the best way to attain a secular society?
Addressing social justice issues is a way to expand the atheist community. Over and above being the right thing to do, promoting diversity and limiting bigotry within organised atheism is a way to expand our ranks. Sure, some folks will be turned off by it, but by and large those folks will be bigots that we’re better off without. Their numbers will be more than made up by the welcoming atmosphere created for the disadvantaged.
It’s also a point of difference between atheism and many organised religions. Religions, not all of course but most, encourage bigotry. Evangelical Christianity being a prime example. You only have to look at where Transgendered bathroom, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage bills come from in order to see that.
I have no idea how to quote on this platform, so I will try and answer the questions in the order they were presented.
|We are. If you deign to call yourself an atheist, be a GOOD PERSON, which means for social justice, not bigotry and misogyny.
No, that is YOUR definition. What DOES social justice actually mean? One can be a good person, which I fully endorse, not be bigoted or misogynist, and not feel one needs to parade and promote the various SJ issues that abound. I’m conservative by nature, fiscally certainly, and on some social issues, but what does that have to do with atheism? Don’t confuse my conservatism with the bat shit crazy stuff going on in right wing politics right now. If you do, YOU are stereotyping.
|First, when you say “leave our thing alone,” what is your thing, specifically? How did you come to own this thing? Who else owns it?
Atheism and the promotion of a secular society. Period. The latter which virtually every other atheist, and many of faith, will support. Why dilute it with other issues? Concentrate on the separation of religion and state. Don’t jump on whatever the next ‘cool’ issue is. You and those that do are getting sidetracked by that, and do the atheism movement no favors.
|Second, in light of the fact that so many religious views are illiberal and anti-secular, why are liberal views or SJ issues not also secular issues?
How does being an atheist make you automatically a liberal? Why can’t one with conservative views not want a strong secular society? I may feel strongly that Trump should never get a sniff at power, but I don’t see him as a conservative. But that has nothing to do with my atheism. And why should it?
|Third, how is that because you have been hurt by religion you get to dictate what should and what should not be fought for? If I state that I too was hurt by religion and I say we should fight for liberal and SJ values as part of promoting atheism, why is my vote not equal to yours?
Great have your vote, but understand dilution of a focus will erode the end result. A group like FFRF is laser focused on one thing, and does it well. The Occupy movement? No better than a fart in a windstorm. It came, it stank, it disappeared and accomplished nothing of consequence. Let’s get all the energy focused on the secularization of society, and as I stated before, if we individually have other passions, act on those. If SJ issues are yours, pick one and work on it. I happen to be very passionate about conservation of habitat and wildlife and have done and accomplished significant results in that area, working with both religious , agnostic and atheists. Frankly, most I have no clue what their religious viewpoints were, and you know what, it didn’t’ matter. What mattered was that I got governments to act positively.
|Fourth, and finally, from where do you derive your authority or expertise to decide the best way to attain a secular society?
My previous successes in the conservation field as outlined above. Involving millions of dollars allocated, and hundred of thousands of acres. My team was focused… we did not get into ancillary issues many of us were interested in. Applying that focus will always get a better result than being all things to all people. That is just reality.
|Addressing social justice issues is a way to expand the atheist community. Over and above being the right thing to do, promoting diversity and limiting bigotry within organised atheism is a way to expand our ranks. Sure, some folks will be turned off by it, but by and large those folks will be bigots that we’re better off without. Their numbers will be more than made up by the welcoming atmosphere created for the disadvantaged.
Wow, talk about stereotyping! So those like myself who are turned off by the SJ issue promotion are by and large bigots? That is just plain rude and insulting. It may be time to look into the mirror and ask yourself why you feel that way? What triggers gave you that prejudicial viewpoint? Do you seriously mean that if someone doesn’t buy into the groupthink that makes one a bigot? That type of thinking is cultish, and exactly what many of us are opposed to with how churches promote their agendas. Seriously, that is a very insulting thing to say.
|It’s also a point of difference between atheism and many organised religions. Religions, not all of course but most, encourage bigotry. Evangelical Christianity being a prime example. You only have to look at where Transgendered bathroom, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage bills come from in order to see that.
Transgendered issues, I couldn’t care less if bathrooms are shared, as long as the transgendered person at least resembles the majority of those in the room. I DO care if a penis bearer is in a female locker/change room though, as there is no way a female, especially those in their teen years, should be made uncomfortable. I also care if a vagina bearer went into a male locker/change room for the same reason.
Gay marriage? Who cares? If two people love each other, how the heck does that affect me? It doesn’t. Let them get married.
I’m mixed on abortion, and can argue both sides. Certainly, unless that mother’s life is endangered, I am opposed to anything after the 1st trimester. I have qualms about a person who uses multiple abortions as a birth control method, and does not employ any others. On the other hand, adequate access to a prompt and safe place is a necessity, and I strongly support that those be in place. Give me a year or another 19 years, and I may change my mind. :)
The long and the short of is that SJ issues can go and stand on their own. As atheists, we need to ensure that the impact of religions on society and government is minimal. Fight for secularization. Fight for parsonage taxation. Fight for taxation of churches/mosques/temples etc to pay property and income tax and allow only those activities that are truly charitable as exempt. Those we can win, but getting sidetracked with whatever the flavor of the day SJ issue that comes along is a non-starter.
skeptic#11
I had that problem but I learned by going on the Internets and looking
.
HTML lesson
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
<a href=”paste address here”>your cute linkname</a>
your cutelinkname
≠
≠
skeptic
oh dear
That is a very nice shovel you have there,
I was disappointed at first as well but now my view has moderated after being reminded that the former executive director had mucked things up pretty well – a two other groups – so the rally had only 6 months of real planning as well as funding issues.
Thanks, most discussion platforms don’t require HTML.
P.S. I built my first website on Notepad in 1995.
Isn’t that special. And now you find simple tags too difficult to trouble with?
Direct observation of the opinions and actions of folks within the atheist movement who are opposed to SJ issues. Yup, it’s a pretty broad brush, but here’s the thing: I don’t subscribe to the perfection fallacy. I’m okay with occasionally offending someone accidentally. All they have to do to receive a sincere apology is to demonstrate that they are not in fact bigoted. Sadly, you fail on this count.
No one has the right to never feel discomfort, hell, this is even a major talking point from the anti-SJ crowd. But there’s a huge difference between the discomfort someone in the majority feels upon being confronted with a situation outside their usual experience, and the discomfort disadvantaged minorities feel from being denied rights and services because of the the thing that makes them a minority. These two things are not equivalent in scope or effect, not even close.
When the suicide rate of cisgendered folk spikes to the same levels to that of trans folk I might have some sympathy for your position. But we both know that will never happen. Certainly not because once in a vanishingly small while a member of the cis majority encounters a trans person in the bathroom.
You want to preserve the comfort of the majority at the cost of the rights and freedoms of a minority. That makes you a bigot. Congratulations.
@skeptic
Phew! Thank goodness somebody has finally chosen to challenge this! How on earth could the rejection of the worst aspects of humanity – those most heavily promoted by religions around the world – be correlated with the rejection of religion – that which promotes the worst aspects of humanity? I can think of no possible path from rejecting religion to rejecting the social poisons promoted by religion. You are quite correct, we must abandon this forthwith, and our opposition must be levelled entirely at the least harmful aspects of religion, whose presence or absence makes little difference.
You don’t think gay people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think people of colour have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think women have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think trans people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the poor have been hurt by religon?
You don’t think people with disabilities have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think children have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think workers have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the unemployed have been hurt by religion?
“Skepticism – it’s about falling in line!”
If there are atheists who are happy to ignore vast swaths of secular issues, simply because they can’t comprehend how they effect them too, great…. go volunteer there. But leave our thing alone.
Plenty of blogs and discussion platforms use HTML for commenting. Perhaps you simply have not noticed that the option is available, much as you did here. WordPress, which this site uses, is the most commonly used CMS in the world. By default the only formatting options available for commenters is HTML, and most blogs seem to stick with that, even large ones.
Some of us have been using the Internet for longer than you, I don’t think anyone is going to be impressed by your hardcore use of notepad. It does not seem to have helped anyway.
@17
I asked how quotes worked here. A simple HTML response would have sufficed without all the snark.
Disqus is also a very popular commenting system and much like WordPress quotes and formatting are performed using HTML. I have a hard time believing you have not come across a discussion platform using Disqus.
Is there a basic primer on the issue of social justice and atheism out there? It would be nice to have something to ask people to read first, and come back informed about some of the main thoughts about this because this complaint comes up an awful lot, and it gets tiring to go over it again and again. It is hardly a fresh topic of discussion.
Poor, poor precious little snowflake. I fear such a delicate creature as you will not fare well ’round these parts.
Not targeted, not I don’t see that. You could have added, but didn’t for some reason:
You don’t think the business people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the married people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the straight people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the white people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the conservative people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the hunters and anglers have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the self-employed have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the First Nations people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the Inuit people have been hurt by religion?
You don’t think the farming people have been hurt by religion?
etc.
Looks like it will be a hoot and you are living up to that old truism:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
I have not doubt where your perspectives lie.
Hah. Interesting as to which of my comments you choose to respond to. Very interesting…
Some people might argue that if you don’t believe in any god, you kinda have to accept that bad shit will continue to stink up the place until we humans decide to do something about that bad shit. So in that sense, attention to ‘social justice’ issues is a natural consequence of atheism. But if you happen to not care about that sort of thing, fine. Attention to “social justice” issues can be fully justified in brute realpolitik terms; no need to invoke SJW-oid fluffy-bunny “ooh, we wouldn’t want people to feel uncomfortable” arguments.
Fact: White men are, demographically speaking, a shrinking percentage of the American populace. This has been true for a number of years now, and the trend looks to continue for the foreseeable future.
Fact: For the most part, “social justice” issues are those whose negative effects fall disproportionately on people who are not white, and/or people who are not male. If the atheist movement does not address social justice issues, it follows that the atheist movement will, by that lack of concern, tend to be seen by non-whites and/or non-males as irrelevant at best, to downright toxic at worst.
Given the above two facts, it’s clear that the atheist movement must either (a) address ‘social justice’ issues, or else (b) remain a creature of the ever-shrinking White Male demographic. Should the atheist movement opt for door B, said movement will become increasingly less able to have any effect whatsoever on any issue of interest to atheists. It therefore follows that attention to “social justice” issues is a vital and necessary part of making it possible for the atheist movement to achieve any goals whatsoever, be it parsonage taxation, or maintaining the wall-of-separation, or, well, anything else, in years to come.
@skeptic
Does hurt have to be specifically targeted in order to hurt? (And if you really don’t see it, you probably need to put a little bit of that skepticism of yours to use.)
Because a list of infinite length takes rather a long time to read?
Point is this: atheists are not the only group hurt by religion. All of humanity is hurt by religion. If you want to waste time having rallies about how “we don’t believe in god, woo!” that’s absolutely fine, but some of us would like to actually address the hurts caused and shored up by religion. If nothing else, even if you don’t actually care to tackle any of the harm that religion causes and supports, showing -even if you’re just pretending- that we care about dealing with those things is a good way to soften attitudes toward us and earn allies.
As it stands, plenty of marginalised groups are hostile to us because so many of us smugly proclaim that they’re not worthy of our time or actively work, hand in hand with the religious groups they claim to oppose, to keep them down. Even members of those groups who are atheists will often avoid atheist groups, because, at best, “wah wah wah! Social justice is ruining atheism! Wah wah fucking wah!” At worst there are those who buy into such nonsense as “race realism,” or they’re “skeptical of transgenderism.” I suppose we can be thankful that very few atheists are ignorant enough to still cheerlead for homophobia. Rejection of social justice stunts us. Outright opposition to it diminishes us.
The promotion of a secular society is a social justice issue. Why are you, as someone who does not want social justice to dilute atheism, diluting atheism with social justice?
The next cool (sorry, I meant ‘cool’) issue? Are you fucking serious? The consistent application of skepticism to societal attitudes is unacceptable to you? Just “the next ‘cool’ issue”? What the fuck is it with people who call themselves “skeptic” and being hostile to skepticism in practice? Skeptic is not a title. Skepticism is not a badge. It’s a process, not an attribute. It is not the term you use to prove that you’re smarter than everyone else; it’s the tool you use to avoid, as much as possible, the mistakes we’re all prone to.
Ah! The cry of the wild Deep Thinker! “Groupthink! Groupthink!” they all chirp in unison. And their mating call of, “It’s not important because it doesn’t impact me!” just… *sniff* excuse me. I’m overwhelmed by the pure beauty of it all…
It’s much harder to be convincingly grumpy when you mess up the blockquote tags. :\
skeptic, #12
Since SJ issues are racism, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ views, xenophobia, ableism, etc, the answer to your question is, of course, yes.
@31, Saad
Heh, yeah. I’m always wryly amused (with just a hint of sadly exasperated) at people who are surprised by the fact that rejecting positions opposed to bigotry makes them a bigot.
I’ve yet to encounter a person who is upset about “SJW co-opting” of anything that hasn’t ended up revealing themselves to be some variety of bigot (at best) or out-and-out regressive asshole (at worst). And then they get mad when accurately labeled. “Hey! I may support economic and social positions that disenfranchise minority groups, and actively oppose addressing those issues, but how dare you call me a bigot!”
This needs to be empahsized to the nth degree. Actions have consequences. That’s basic rational thinking, right? If you actively state that your group should not pay attention to mistreatment of an entire swath of people, the result is that you are letting that mistreatment continue. Your position that your group should avoid helping that swath of people, understanding that the result means their mistreatment will continue, means that you are comfortable with that result. You are fine with letting mistreatment continue. You don’t have a problem with it even to the point of not being willing to let your group talk about it once in awhile. There is precious little airspace between “I don’t like this set of people” and “these people are being mistreated, but I refuse to do anything about it”. And once you get to “I will actively oppose any efforts by my cohort to focus on that mistreatment”, well… yeah. Bigot.
skeptic, #12
This doesn’t help either.
Body and genitalia policing by someone who opposes religion and its encroachment on people’s personal lives.
Wow. Such consistent. Very rational. Many skepticism.
And haven’t we already had at least one instance of a (cis in this case, if I’m remembering correctly) woman being assaulted for not sufficiently resembling the majority of those in the bathroom in this current trans panic?
Also, I don’t remember hearing in the news about the epidemic of people being assaulted in bathrooms by someone who snuck in by pretending to be of that gender presentation. Like, ever.
Have a strong opinion that people shouldn’t be in the “wrong” bathroom or changing room because of the currently entirely hypothetical possibility that someone at some point might feel uncomfortable, but completely reject the idea that maybe some guidelines on not sexually harassing others would be helpful even though it is one of the top actual complaints by people in society? Yeah, there are a few words for that. None of them good.
Social conservatism (SC) is essentially backwardism + digging in one’s heels. SCs don’t want the lunch counters integrated. They want LGBT folk to suppress themselves back into the closet. They want women to get back in the kitchen and stop with the voting thing.
What SCs forget is their positions are progressive from those that came before. I assume you have (or at one point, had) a job, so you are familiar with the concept of sick time, vacations, weekends, OSHA and the legal 40-hour work week. A true SC would argue against all those; remember The Jungle?
Oh, and I hope you’re a landowner, because otherwise Thomas Jefferson would’ve thought you shouldn’t have the right to vote, but Social Progressives pushed for change—and here we are.
In the end, Atheism (the movement) is more about Social Progressivism: ending religion’s
influence ondomination of government and replacing it with egalitarian morals.Can’t resist:
Really, Notepad? I built my first website using
viin ’93, so your mastery of the Worst Text Editor Ever is not a feat by any means. Please tell me you’ve finally embraced the command-line (zsh, bash, something) and not the Windows shite version.Skeptic @12:
I’m late to the party, but I think this one could use a little deconstruction:
There is no such thing as a pregnancy that does not endanger the mother’s life. What you mean is that if it endangers her life enough that you deign to notice, you’ll allow her control over her own body.
Fine. You should definitely use birth control any time you’re engaging in behavior that might lead to conception since to not do so makes you uncomfortable. In fact, you should pass on any sexual encounters where the other person does not agree to use adequate birth control if it makes you uncomfortable. Otherwise, why is it any of your business what form of birth control a person uses?
How generous. As long as the fetus isn’t older than 12 weeks. Never mind whether they have anencephaly or microcephaly from Zika or their heart is uncorrectably malformed or whatever else: The calender controls all. And make sure this isn’t “just” birth control or risk your disapproval. Who is pure enough to use these safe places?
skeptic,
What has ‘skepticism’ to do with ‘atheism’?
What has ‘reason’ to do with ‘atheism’?
What has ‘secularism’ to do with ‘atheism’?
What has ‘anti-religion’ to do with ‘atheism’?
According to you, ahum, ‘logic’, the reason rally should have lasted two seconds: a person climbing on stage, saying ‘there are no gods’, and then climbing down again. The end.
skeptic #12
Ineresting.
refresh is good
I should do it more
So far, atheist groups excluding people like you by focusing on SJ matters sounds like a good thing.
I would really not share a movement with people that want to police how I present in order to use the restroom.
Frankly, I could take or leave the atheism aspect of such groups anyways. I care more about bigots (yes, bigots!) like you trying to deny me rights and force me to use the incorrect facilities than I do about unenforceable religious test laws or some Texas mayor putting up a Christmas display or some of the other inconsequential stuff I’ve seen atheist groups get in a tizzy about.
Yeah. I mean, I’m cis gendered, but I don’t want someone studying my clothes or hairstyle, much less my…tracts of land*…to make sure I “belong” in a particular bathroom. Why not assume that the person needing to go knows which bathroom they should use and not worry about it?
*It just occurred to me to wonder whether this obsession with making sure the “right” people go into a given bathroom has something to do with men wanting an excuse to stare at women. As in, “I’m not a creep eying a stranger’s body, I’m just making sure they’re in the right restroom.”
skeptic,
When you get in the way of people trying to use the bathroom comfortably, you’re the bad guy.
When you find as your allies the worst of the right-wing religious extremists, you’re the bad guy.
And lastly, when you make an issue out of people peeing and pooping, you sound like a joke. The only reason you have to be taken seriously is because of the power you hold in society in this matter thanks to the huge support you get (and accept) from the religious.
Speaking of which, have you thanked your Christian brothers and sisters today? Without them, your opinion would be a minority opinion that wouldn’t be able to get in the way trans people living normal lives in public.
My summary of dictionary atheism:
“It’s amazing how Western society and cultural attitudes have been significantly shaped by claims about what a particular God wants us to do and yet even though that God doesn’t exist most of the societal apparatus derived from these claims turns out to be entirely rational. Especially the parts that benefit me personally.
The bits that don’t benefit me probably came from irrational religious views so we can get rid of those.”
Another note to skeptic #11
Did you kick anyone out of your group for being gay? Were the women in your group sexually harassed? Did people in your group regularly use racial slurs and make racist jokes? Were there any trans people in your group and did you misgender them or tell them which bathroom they had to use? Did you ignore cost barriers preventing poor people contributing to your cause? So if you did none of those things, congratulations, you were (unbeknownst to you) an SJW-infected intersectional conservationist group.
Now some of us would like that to be true for atheist activist movements as well. And then add on to that the fact that ignoring all the significant issues minority groups have with religion and the direct ways it harms them has been shown to dissuade those people from participating in and supporting atheist activism, and second there is an active bigotted pushback against minority participation in atheism online and thirdly there are significant harassment problems in the atheist movement, all of which show that “SJW” issues aren’t piggy-backing on atheism – they are vitally necessary to the very existence of the movement!
Basically, pretending an issue such as “in god we trust” on US money is a more important atheist issue than US religious crackpots saying gay people should be either reeducated as children (religion-based advocacy of torture) or stoned/killed by God’s wrath as adults (religion-based incitement to violence and hatred) is phenomenally stupid and the kind of narrow focus that even if successful will have little to no benefit to actual people being harmed by religion.
specialffrog, #46
Well said.
Religion poisons everything. To fix it, just recite the words “there is no god” once a day at night. All the poisoned bits will be cured.
Sounds weirdly… religious.
@#11 Skeptic
I beg to differ.
Occupy changed the entire national conversation and brought us a candidate who openly calls himself a democratic socialist.
@zenlike #39:
You social justice atheists, always promoting this nonsensical “Atheism+”! Why, a *true* dictionary atheist knows that there shouldn’t even be a Reason Rally! What about “I do not believe in god(s)” implies that people should gather together in public to talk about it? Belief is personal! There’s nothing in atheism about going to a central location to hear a guy saying stuff to a crowd of like-minded people–in fact, that sounds a lot like religion to me!
I’m tired of guys like skeptic trying to take over atheism and fill it with their social justice causes.
“Promotion of atheism”? That’s just proselytizing! This is more Atheism+ cultist nonsense!
“Hurt by religion”? Pssh, reals before feels! What does atheism have to do with people’s feelings?
“Want to see our society be secular” Then go to a Secular Rally! Atheism has nothing to do with what positions you think governments should take with respect to religious expression! Atheism is just lack of belief in god(s)! Stop trying to hijack atheism to promote your liberal political views!
(/snark, obviously)
skeptic, #11
You’re two-thirds of the way there yourself.
QFFT
Racism is a big debate in Dutch news papers now. It is disheartening to see so many people claiming not to be racists, spouting and/or defending racist bullshit. We see exact the same thing time and time again in the atheist community.
Also, can’t believe I passed this up
Yes? Anyone who sees that there is bigotry going on and either passively allows it to happen or actively promotes it is, at the very minimum, a bigot.
let’s see, ‘skeptic’ as the name or part of the name. Check.
‘groupthink’. Check.
‘social conservative’ Check.
‘Atheism has nothing to do with anything else’ Check.
etc….
I think I won this round of bingo!!!
Seriously, most of these dudebros could be replaced with a poorly written chat bot and they’d be more interesting.
Another reason that atheists should care about social justice issues is that by doing so, we can change the public perception of atheists. One of the nasty stereotypes fundies like to push about atheists is that we are completely amoral because we don’t have the constant threat of eternal damnation hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles. By actively championing social justice, we show that this is not the case. We show that it is possible to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing, and not because you think you’ll go to Hell if you don’t. Theists who see us doing this might realize that atheists aren’t so immoral after all. They might even become atheists themselves upon realizing they don’t need religion to be moral.
Even if you don’t care about social justice issues, surely you see the benefit of a good public image.
More advertising definitely would have helped. I read atheist blogs and didn’t realize it was coming up until a couple weeks ago. They probably could have gotten that effective advertising if, as PZ suggests, they invited Greta Christina and other activists who are active on social media.
Although turnout could have been better, the event itself was really well organized and they did a good job keeping speakers to their time limits. Also, I’ve never before seen so many flying spaghetti monster costumes in my life. Clearly I’m going to the wrong Halloween parties.