Schism

metalman said:
"third wave" of atheism, one that extends atheist activism into progressive politics and calls for a part of the movement to be one where women can exist free from the harassment that has plagued women publicly involved in the atheist movement.
Click to expand...

Atheism is riven with schisms already because atheism isn't actually a movement or philosophy. Many people of many different philosophies and politics are involved and share very little except not believing in supernatural beings. I would be like imagining that the people who don't have cats as pets forms some sort of community.
 
Hmm. Elevator-gate has blossomed into the PZ loves Emma show.
 
the 140 character snark war on Twitter under #AtheismPlus


648739613.jpg


Darren ‏@MetalOllie
Rebecca Watson & Jen McCreight diminish the severity of sexual harassment equating it with a man asking a woman her NAME. #AtheismPlus

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret
Weee RT @atheisticagnost: does #atheismplus require you to block everyone you have a single disagreement with or #youjustabitch like that

Lucy Wainwright ‏@Whoozley
@euphrosyna That's the basis of the issue I have with #atheismplus. It assumes I'm an arsehole, then wonders why I don't want to join.

Luke Crowe ‏@atheistcrow
Sad to see the rational & wise leader of #AtheismPlus @jennifurret having a hissy fit & blocking critics #atheism http://twitpic.com/ao8oxi

human rights gal ‏@bexxbissell
being #atheismplus means that you think are a feminist, but you actually just use the word 'sexist' to silence ppl who 'hurt your feelings'

human rights gal ‏@bexxbissell
'Old white men' representing the atheist movement? Give me Hitchens, Dawkins + Harris over Watson, Myers + McCreight any day! #atheismplus

The Logical Narwhal ‏@LogicalNarwhal
Can't help wondering if a host of arguments would've been avoided by simply calling it Feminism+. #atheismplus

:jerry:
 
@Metalman,
I'm glad you ran across this. Here you've applied very stereotypical (and wrong) views about atheists. One can't have a schism without a diverse community. I hope it's provided you some learning into diversity that exists within atheism. In most cases it's not the hopelessness and devolution you wish it were.
 
faethor said:
One can't have a schism without a diverse community. I hope it's provided you some learning into diversity that exists within atheism. In most cases it's not the hopelessness and devolution you wish it were.
Click to expand...

This Atheism + is really just radical feminism for atheists

The real schism is over whether you call your self an:
Atheist, free-thinker, Humanist, skeptic, Naturalist, or a Unitarian

Not all atheists reject Christian morality, they call themselves Unitarian's
 
"This Atheism + is really just radical feminism for atheists" - Yes the radical notion that women are people too with equal rights to their male counterparts.

"Not all atheists reject Christian morality, they call themselves Unitarian's" -- Unitarians reject the notion of a trinity, predestination, and original sin. They also see Christ as a prophet. But, they do see God as a single entity. While your definition of 'True Christian(tm)' is failed by this theism it doesn't make it atheist. It's another belief system with it's own idea of a diety. Atheists have no dieties.
 
faethor said:
Unitarians reject the notion of a trinity, predestination, and original sin. They also see Christ as a prophet. But, they do see God as a single entity.
Click to expand...

depend on which branch of Unitarians, some Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists moved away from the traditional Christian roots of Unitarianism. UU's have no official creed or dogma

Unitarian Universalism (UU's) espouses a pluralist approach to religious belief, members describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, deist, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, pagan or assume no label at all, fewer than about 20% of UU's currently identify themselves as Christian.
 
This appears to be more of an issue of religious people trying to make sense of atheists and failing. Religious people always try to equate atheism as some other form of belief system, when really the only thing one atheist has in common with another is what they don't believe. Trying to create a single unified group of atheists and/or "movement" is about as likely to be successful as creating a website dedicated to former Amiga users with identical political views.
 
metalman said:
depend on which branch of Unitarians, some Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists moved away from the traditional Christian roots of Unitarianism. UU's have no official creed or dogma
Click to expand...

I thought you might go to the UUs as your out when you actually said Unitarian - but you are still making a woefully ignorant statement. Yes, they let atheists into UU but they are NOT all atheist. And further more, not all atheists reject "Christian" morality and they don't call themselves anything BUT atheist - though that does depend upon what is considered Christian morality. Is love thine enemies Christian? How about turn the other cheek? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? (Though that predates Christ by quite a few centuries). Many other lovely sentiments are also uttered but are Christians supposed to do these things, or just believe that Christ is lord. You don't have to be Cristian to have morals and being Christian doesn't automatically give you morality.
 
@Fluffy beat me to my point.

The vast majority of UU believe there's something out there to seek for. So a theism in so far that it's seeking some sort of external higher power at the helm. As for 'atheists' that are let in we know all religions do that. I have some atheist friends that go to Catholic Churches because they believe it good for their kids and it appeases their wife. They're not kicked out. But, they're hardly Catholic.

And as for 'Christian morality' - be nice to one another is a fairly universal theme in all religions. Though yeah limited in scope from time to time. Some Islamists only think their version of Islam deserves the nice treatment. And of course there are Christians and Jews carrying this same mentality.


FluffyMcDeath said:
You don't have to be Cristian to have morals and being Christian doesn't automatically give you morality.
Click to expand...
Even if Christians are 'good' that doesn't mean they have morals either. Morals is the doing what is right or wrong based on one's conscious. If that Christian is only doing good works to get into heaven he's not moral. He's a SkyDaddy kiss ass. I think we can cite many of those sorts of Christians. Morality really is doing what is right because you decide it's right. Morality isn't doing what's right because someone told you it's right. In that later version you've lost your individuality in view that a dictate holds the higher control and power.
 
I sort of heard about this Rebecca Watson and her 'adventure' at a convention in an elevator. Apparently she got all Butt-hurt when a guy in the elevator asked her out for a cup of coffee...or something.

and then got REALLY butthurt when Dawkins told her to get over it. I sort agree with him. She's making a tempest in a teapot here.

Or else MY definition of sexism is way different than hers. :rolleyes:



what bores me about some of these 'feminist' gals is that they spend way too much time wagging their fingers at people. oy vey.
talk to me about sexism when some asshole tells you he's not paying you the same as a guy. THEN I'll take you seriously
 
@Metalman,

Didn't you at one time post the Christianity Branches?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg

Interesting enough Wikipedia lists Unitarian and Mormons as NonTrinitarian Christians .. A couple of points here..
* First, Unitarians are a theism as they have the concept of a dietific power somehow interacting with the universe. Atheists understand we have no dieties or supernatural forces working within our universe. So very different.
* Second, I hope you see in your classification of 'True Christian(tm)' that others around the world don't necessarily agree with you. In a discussion if you're going to input that someone isn't a 'Christian' perhaps it's best that you agree or agree to disagree on what being a Christian means. It seems your personal scope is narrower than others. Mine is both are Christians while the Catholics and Protestants (which were my examples) are 'Traditional Christians'. As only God knows who is 'True' it's not something any human can fairly assign.
 
cecilia said:
I sort of heard about this Rebecca Watson and her 'adventure' at a convention in an elevator. Apparently she got all Butt-hurt when a guy in the elevator asked her out for a cup of coffee...or something.

and then got REALLY butthurt when Dawkins told her to get over it. I sort agree with him. She's making a tempest in a teapot here.

Or else MY definition of sexism is way different than hers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Dawkins response was worse treatment happens to Muslim women so suck it up Rebecca. If there was sexual harassment it doesn't matter if worse problems are happening elsewhere. Sexual harassment is still happening and it's still wrong. Dawkins put forth an argument with faulty logic.

Dawkins "Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don't tell me again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery," he wrote. "But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with."

Would Dawkins accept ignoring the actions of Christians in his community because Islamic Religion elsewhere in the world is worse? Somehow I doubt he'd be convinced and no longer speak about Christians trying to teach evolution and ignoring science in his own backyard.
 
faethor said:
Would Dawkins accept ignoring the actions of Christians in his community because Islamic Religion elsewhere in the world is worse?
Click to expand...
Perhaps that would be valid if it were true that Islam was worse in the denial of science. Both Christian and Islamic faiths harbour sects that are equally bad in that regard.
 
faethor said:
Dawkins response was worse treatment happens to Muslim women so suck it up Rebecca. If there was sexual harassment it doesn't matter if worse problems are happening elsewhere. Sexual harassment is still happening and it's still wrong. Dawkins put forth an argument with faulty logic.

Dawkins "Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don't tell me again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery," he wrote. "But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with."

Would Dawkins accept ignoring the actions of Christians in his community because Islamic Religion elsewhere in the world is worse? Somehow I doubt he'd be convinced and no longer speak about Christians trying to teach evolution and ignoring science in his own backyard.
Click to expand...
strangely I am having a similar debate on FB with a gal that is upset over someone who has stopped bloggin because she got verbally abused
Congratulations, trolls and misogynists

my response to her is basically stop giving these little boys with their stupid words power over you.

needless to say they are not happy with me :D

Dawkins response may sound insensitive but as I have lived in the real world with real sexism I don't feel the correct reaction is to run in a corner and cry. I was brought up to be strong, figure out a way around the morons and push forward.

yes, all sexism is bad. I have been fortunate that I have not been assaulted physically. Unlike the courageous ladies who fought for the right to vote, were force fed, taken to jail, etc. I honor them. I just had to listen to idiots tell me I didn't need to get the same payment as a guy.
Annoying, yes, Physically harmful, no.

and that's because I could - and did - walk away. I could choose someone else to work with. I could say NO. I STILL had my power over MY life and MY career. And that's what these girls don't seem to understand.

You will never change little boys who suffer from low self-esteem. There will always be boys who call you a slut, a c_unt, etc. Those are just words and they have no meaning unless I give them meaning.
 
cecilia said:
strangely I am having a similar debate on FB with a gal that is upset over someone who has stopped bloggin because she got verbally abused
Congratulations, trolls and misogynists
Click to expand...

Sometimes people hate you and they will use whatever language they think will upset you the most. And if you tell them what upsets you then you are just giving them all the ammo they need. Sorry to sound sexist about this but this is something men already know - never let the other guy know when he's getting to you - unless you can flatten him. That's politics. Should people attack other people? Ideally, no, but those kind of people don't share your ideals. And yet - for the most part most people are still pretty decent. The assholes a generally fairly thin on the ground but when you put yourself on the internet you are suddenly talking to a lot more people. 100 people call you a slut, 500,000,000 people didn't. Don't feed the trolls.
my response to her is basically stop giving these little boys with their stupid words power over you.

needless to say they are not happy with me :D
Click to expand...

yes, all sexism is bad.
Click to expand...

Bad sexism is bad. The thing is the universe is sexist. It evolved us as a sexually reproducing species and we really do have different roles to play on a fundamental level. It might not be fair but it is true and real. We live at a time when we have the luxury to pretend that it's not true but we can't change that it is true. Reality is sexist and evolution has set us up with strategies for playing a rough reproductive game - there is always a battle between the sees because our stakes best outcome strategies are so different. When we don't get our way we consider that "bad" sexism. If the people it's between are relatively satisfied with the nature of the inequality then it's not.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Sometimes people hate you and they will use whatever language they think will upset you the most. And if you tell them what upsets you then you are just giving them all the ammo they need. Sorry to sound sexist about this but this is something men already know - never let the other guy know when he's getting to you - unless you can flatten him. That's politics. Should people attack other people? Ideally, no, but those kind of people don't share your ideals. And yet - for the most part most people are still pretty decent. The assholes a generally fairly thin on the ground but when you put yourself on the internet you are suddenly talking to a lot more people. 100 people call you a slut, 500,000,000 people didn't. Don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...
you and I know that, sir, but these girls are, well, they act like girls.

I didn't actually say that to them, but in my head I'm thinking, 'sheesh, stop being a girl'

even though what I ended up saying to them was quite mild they were still getting ALL butthurt (just love that expression). They really want the world to be all butterflies and roses and blue sky.

oy vey. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top