You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 12:21:09 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Elliquian Atheists  (Read 35652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #850 on: April 04, 2013, 04:04:07 PM »
I like reading things that people tell me not to read.  O:)

Except Twilight.  I believe them about Twilight.  And 50 Shades of Grey

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #851 on: April 04, 2013, 04:13:40 PM »
Basically? Because "sacred" tends to mean "unchanging" in practice. By cutting out parts of a sacred work, you reduce it to the profane. No, it doesn't make sense - it's part of the "faith" package, near as I can tell.

Which is why I don't understand liberal, or conversative Christians - what sacred actually means is 'unchanging when I want it to support my arguement, but ignored/changed when I want it to support my other arguement'.

Believing in something merely because that something is not proven is indeed silly and so is disbelief in something that has not been disproven.  The two are essentially belief.  Atheists and Theists are both staring at a box and making a guess as to what lies inside.  Neither can prove nor disprove if there is even anything inside the box.  Someone can shake the box and say they heard nothing, someone else claims to have heard something.  Back and forth we can all go, but at the end of the day both are still exercising belief. 

Anyway, I am tired and I have a 12 hour shift coming up. 

So, it's completely rational and on par with a Christian's belief in God, for me to believe that chocolate unicorns dance behind people when they're not looking? Remember, the chocolate unicorn only appear and dance when you're not looking, and can only be seen by the human eye. You can't -disprove- that those chocolate unicorns exist, so does it make it more logical that unless someone -can- prove they don't exist, I should just believe? You havn't disproven that someone called Harry Potter didn't do magic, and goes to a school teaching magic.

I'm not understanding your point here; admittedly, I just got back from the gym and I'm a bit ill, so it's more than likely my tired brain, but... Believing in something you have no reason to believe in is silly... but not believing in something because you don't have proof it exists is also silly? If anyone was able to, or you yourself Pumpkin can claify it to me, I'd be grateful. :)

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #852 on: April 04, 2013, 05:47:15 PM »
Believing in something merely because that something is not proven is indeed silly and so is disbelief in something that has not been disproven.  The two are essentially belief.  Atheists and Theists are both staring at a box and making a guess as to what lies inside.  Neither can prove nor disprove if there is even anything inside the box.  Someone can shake the box and say they heard nothing, someone else claims to have heard something.  Back and forth we can all go, but at the end of the day both are still exercising belief. 

Anyway, I am tired and I have a 12 hour shift coming up.

The analogy makes sense in isolation but it does not match the real world problem. A better analogy would be this:

X-tain claims that there is a god in the box.
Athiest opens the box to reveal nothing.

Of course, rather than admit to being flat out wrong, X-tain argues that you can't really be sure that there is nothing in the box because there could be something imperceptible in there.... like something made of dark matter. That's it. God is made out of dark matter!





Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #853 on: April 04, 2013, 06:17:55 PM »
The Templeton study isn’t exactly definitive proof that God doesn’t exist.  So I wouldn’t get excited on that account.  Also a possible explanation is depression, but there is also another explanation presented by researchers.  Patients were randomly assigned to these groups.  The group that was informed of the prayer intercession was not told this was a research study simply that a group of people were coming to pray for them.  So anxiety could have been associated with the hospital “having people come pray for them.”  Obviously if the hospital is having people come pray for them the patient is going to interpret this as something bad with their condition.  So the study itself could have induced complications.


First of all, as has already been said, you can't prove a negative.  Period.  Example: the Unicorn Dilemma. 

Unicorns don't exist.  How do I know? I don't know.  I can't prove that they don't.  Maybe they do, in a parallel universe, or on some planet that has evolved but is currently beyond our reach.  I can't prove that they don't exist, and therefore according to the Church of the Chocolate Unicorn, they must. 

I can't prove that God doesn't exist, and therefore he must.  See, that's the problem, you can't prove a negative, because you would have to have knowledge of all things, everywhere, and that is simply not possible, unless you believe that there is a being that can do that. And now it's just getting silly, because you have to believe in a being that knows everything, in order to know everything that is out there, in order to prove, or disprove, the existence of the being that knows and does everything.  In short, one must be God in order to disprove God. 

Occam's Razor tells us that God doesn't exist.  The most likely explanation is usually the simplest.  An all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all alling being, or whatever other things you attribute to God is hardly simple, it's so complex that religious leaders tell us frequently that we cannot possibly comprehend god., And the dogma that we have on the nature of God has changed so much over the past few thousand years that it's impossible to read through everything in the Vatican (for example) in one lifetime. And on top of that, even though the dogma/literature has changed, God has always been 'perfect', which is contradictory in itself.  And it also points out the dilemma of "the bible is the perfect word of God" vs. "the bible contradicts itself frequently." If it is the perfect word of God, then how is it imperfect (contradictory)?  And if it is the work of men, doing what God told them to do, then how do we know that Joseph Smith didn't have that same command?  Or Muhammed?  How does one discern 'God'?  And now we are back to the need to be God in order to identify God. 

But I digress....

It is, however, far more likely that the universe and it's parts have a set of natural laws, and have come about through some explainable phenomenon.  And just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean that we won't ever be able to.  It's a work in progress. 

And to say that it's the hospital's fault, and not the idea of prayer's fault, is special pleading. The study was designed to see if prayer was a factor in recovery.  It doesn't MATTER who initiated the prayer.  It doesn't matter who asked for it.  The outcome is going to be the same either way.  Whether or not the prayer was initiated by a family member, the hospital, a doctor, whatever, it doesn't matter who initiates it, it's scarey to know that other people are scared enough for you that they have begun praying.

And this in NO WAY is an argument against God, please don't think that I'm saying this study disproves God.  It was never meant to be a disproof of God.  The study was supposed to be an argument for God that failed, nothing more.  A bunch of doctors and researchers wanted to see if prayer stood up as a healing factor in a scientific study, and it didn't, it actually made people more fearful. The people who designed the study in the first place thought it had a chance of proving that prayer was useful as a factor in healing. I'm guessing that they designed the experiment in a way as to be as fair as possible.

No offense, but your argument that it might be some thing else, depression, or the hospital bringing in religious people to pray, well, it seems like denial to me.

Edit: Also, Props to Vanity Evolved for the mention of Chocolate Unicorns... and anyone else who thought of that concept.  I now worship chocolate unicorns.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 06:36:07 PM by Bandita »

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #854 on: April 04, 2013, 06:30:07 PM »
The analogy makes sense in isolation but it does not match the real world problem. A better analogy would be this:

X-tain claims that there is a god in the box.
Athiest opens the box to reveal nothing.

Of course, rather than admit to being flat out wrong, X-tain argues that you can't really be sure that there is nothing in the box because there could be something imperceptible in there.... like something made of dark matter. That's it. God is made out of dark matter!


Tainted:  I do believe that one is called 'moving the goalpost'. 

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #855 on: April 04, 2013, 06:37:41 PM »
Yeah, that one's a staple, and for good reason x.x unless someones actually looking for the goalpost, they usually don't see it get moved.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #856 on: April 04, 2013, 07:41:10 PM »
And yet, that's just what they did at Nicea.  The Apocrypha are quite fascinating.

Common misconception.  Biblical canon wasn't discussed at Nicea at all. 

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #857 on: April 04, 2013, 07:50:07 PM »
The analogy makes sense in isolation but it does not match the real world problem. A better analogy would be this:

X-tain claims that there is a god in the box.
Athiest opens the box to reveal nothing.
I think an even better analogy would be:

  • A religious person and an atheist come upon a locked box.
  • The religious person claims says they have a feeling that there is a person in the box.
  • Atheist asks why they believe that.
  • The religious person gets angry at the question, and calls the atheist a fool for not being able to sense the person in the box.
  • Atheist asks for evidence.
  • Religious person claims that if you listen really closely, you can hear someone inside the box talking.
  • Atheist listens, hears nothing.
  • Religious person says they didn't listen hard enough, or in the right way, or in an "accepting state of mind".
  • Atheist points out that that is nonsense, and besides, the box is too small for a person to fit in anyway.
  • Religious person tells the atheist that they refuse to hear, because they're already set in their belief that there is no person in the box.
  • Atheist tells the religious person that they have not concluded there is no person in the box, they just don't see any evidence that there is.
  • Religious person repeats the claim, despite having been corrected.
  • Atheist patiently explains the difference be "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X".
  • Religious person repeats the claim, despite having been corrected twice.
  • Atheist points out that listening in an "accepting state of mind" essentially means believing before testing, so it is actually the religious person who is approaching the question with an answer already in mind.
  • Religious person repeats the claim, despite having been corrected thrice.
  • Atheist gets frustrated, and finally just says flat out there is no evidence for a person in the box, and so believing there is a person in the box is irrational.
  • Religious person flies into a fit, whining about being oppressed and called foolish.
  • Atheist explains they didn't insult the believer, they just stated facts.
  • Religious person claims that facts are a matter of opinion. Derp.
  • Atheist asks how it is a matter of opinion that the believer said you could hear a voice if you listen to the box, but it actually can't be heard.
  • Religious person insists it can be heard, but only if you study their made-up "academic" field "person-in-the-box-ology" for a decade.
  • Atheist studies the field, comes out at the end pointing out that it is drivel.
  • Religious person says that the fact that you don't agree with it means you don't really understand it.
  • Atheist - now completely infuriated - points out that everything the religious person has been saying about the box is bullshit, and worse, people are suffering because of this "person-in-the-box" belief.
  • Religious person screams persecution, and tells the atheist that they are irrational, too.
  • Atheist, momentarily baffled at how it helps the religious person's case to admit it's crazy "but so what you're crazy too", asks how their perfectly rational skepticism about the person in the box can be irrational.
  • Religious person says that the atheist can't open the box, so their belief that there is no person in the box is just as much faith as the belief that there is.
  • Atheist starts to repeat YET AGAIN that they don't assert there is no person in the box, merely that they don't believe there is, but gives up and instead points out that the probability of a person in the box is not 50-50, because the box is too small for a person to fit in there.
  • Religious person ignores the point, and again says that atheist can't prove there is no person in the box.
  • Atheist, now completely frustrated, asks the religious person to explain how the person in the box can survive without air or food.
  • Religious person says, "magic (aka, God moves in mysterious ways)"; continues to insist they're perfectly rational.
  • Atheist says, "fuck this noise", and tries to go off to live their life.
  • Religious person interferes in atheist's life, justifying it on what the person-in-the-box says.

And here we are today.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #858 on: April 04, 2013, 07:57:20 PM »
Atheist says, "fuck this noise", and tries to go off to live their life.

This is the step I have the most trouble with. I have difficulty letting it go. I was brought up in a mind-fucked catholic world and now have a need to prove them wrong. Drop it and walk away makes a lot of sense, but is hard for me to do.




Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #859 on: April 04, 2013, 09:08:31 PM »
Common misconception.  Biblical canon wasn't discussed at Nicea at all.

The point is that the books were dropped.  Several books, including the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas.  Hence, the 'sacred text' has been altered.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #860 on: April 04, 2013, 09:12:10 PM »
The point is that the books were dropped.  Several books, including the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas.  Hence, the 'sacred text' has been altered.

No, some books were never adopted.  Thats not the same as dropped.

Although, now I come to think of it, Luther dropped some didn't he.

Offline Sethala

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #861 on: April 04, 2013, 09:50:56 PM »
No, some books were never adopted.  Thats not the same as dropped.

Although, now I come to think of it, Luther dropped some didn't he.

I'm not sure, actually.  I know he raised a stink about how the bible was being taught, but I don't think Lutheran Christianity has done any significant changes to the book itself.  Though they do have a different set of commandments (the second one about graven images doesn't exist, and the 10th commandment was split into "do not covet your neighbor's wife" and "do not covet anything else your neighbor has, either").

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #862 on: April 04, 2013, 09:56:22 PM »
I'm not sure, actually.  I know he raised a stink about how the bible was being taught, but I don't think Lutheran Christianity has done any significant changes to the book itself.  Though they do have a different set of commandments (the second one about graven images doesn't exist, and the 10th commandment was split into "do not covet your neighbor's wife" and "do not covet anything else your neighbor has, either").

And he added a cheeky "alone" to Romans.  I'm relatively certain he removed the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament though.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #863 on: April 04, 2013, 11:56:17 PM »
Your post is scary, Saria.  Mostly because that is me vs. most of my family, and a few friends.  Scary shit there, but glad I'm not the only one who has that story.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #864 on: April 05, 2013, 08:24:37 AM »
Apologetics never cease to amaze me. Some idiot in an IRC chat just told me that every species on the planet was designed an herbivore.

A herbivore.

Spiders, sharks, lizards, lions and wolves, all exclusively herbivores before 'The Fall'. Now that Sin exists, they just 'choose to kill'.

So this person was seriously trying to make me believe that somewhere in the Garden of Eden was a T-Rex swinging it's gigantic open mouth so it could use it's long, sharp teeth to scythe through tree branches.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #865 on: April 05, 2013, 08:40:32 AM »
That person should be shown the horrific effects of a vegan diet on cats.  (Among other things, they go blind due to the lack of certain amino acids.)

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #866 on: April 05, 2013, 08:45:00 AM »
I actually brought that up, and she quoted a study where a lion lived on a diet of cooked eggs, vegetables, and I think nuts, and when offered ground beef it chose not to eat it, and it was as healthy as any other lion.

I Googled it to see if there was any truth to it, and was surprised to see the first page covered in results o.O then I saw they were all from Apologetics and Vegan websites. I haven't browsed much further, but the actual lion they all talk about doesn't seem to have been real...

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #867 on: April 05, 2013, 09:05:39 AM »
And I would have referred her to the episodes of Animal Cops where they found cats in the state I mentioned.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #868 on: April 05, 2013, 11:52:26 AM »
Hmmm... I've been meaning to bring this up a while now, but haven't been sure how to about it, and there was always some other topic in full swing. Now that there's a lull, I think nows a good time to talk about this.

Atheism+ and Skepchick.

If you don't know what these two things mean, I'll give you a run down. Atheism+ is just Atheists who advocate 'social justice', as in being more proactive, which sounds great, but so far it's just been a divisive and deceptively worded big cousin to the Skepchicks. Skepchicks, or 'skeptic chicks', are feminists within the Atheist community who threw up such a colossal fuss about a 'pandemic of serial sexism in Atheist conventions', to the point of women being afraid to go alone for being raped. As you might have guessed, this is exaggerated, to the point of completely made up, as no such problem existed at any point, but the movement was taken seriously and now many influential Atheists like Russel Glasser, Matt Dillahunty and PZ Meyers have signed on and merged it with the whole Atheism+ thing.

If this all sounds very negative, it's because, clearly, I don't like what their doing. I honestly wouldn't be upset if they were just bloggers, but the problem is that they are enforcing this 'social justice' nonesense on the conventions, which are extremely important right now in legitimizing Atheism in a highly religious part of the world. So far, it's all been thought crimes and unnecessary rules against imaginary infractions, like banning t-shirts that 'may offend attenders'. That kind of loose wording has just given them a free ticket to oppress anything they find 'offensive'.

To put it much more bluntly, social thugs and feminazi's have hijacked the conventions, and it could do real harm to Atheism in America.

I realize how biased my own opinion must sound, so I welcome a more open discussion on the topic. What does the Theists and Atheists of Elliquiy think about Atheism+, Skepchicks, and Atheist Conventions? I'll leave some food for thought here.

Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism

Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism (Part 2)

Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism (Part 3)

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #869 on: April 05, 2013, 11:57:35 AM »
Atheist says, "fuck this noise", and tries to go off to live their life.

This is the step I have the most trouble with. I have difficulty letting it go. I was brought up in a mind-fucked catholic world and now have a need to prove them wrong. Drop it and walk away makes a lot of sense, but is hard for me to do.

This. Drop it and walk away is a nice idea, in theory, but I take the bait far too easily.

I actually brought that up, and she quoted a study where a lion lived on a diet of cooked eggs, vegetables, and I think nuts, and when offered ground beef it chose not to eat it, and it was as healthy as any other lion.

I Googled it to see if there was any truth to it, and was surprised to see the first page covered in results o.O then I saw they were all from Apologetics and Vegan websites. I haven't browsed much further, but the actual lion they all talk about doesn't seem to have been real...

It was either Amazing Atheist or Logicked who brought up this study in one of his videos. I agree with his simple retort.

"You can train any animal to live off vegetables and deny meat, as long as you beat it everytime it tries to go for the meat."

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #870 on: April 05, 2013, 12:28:20 PM »
Hmmm... I've been meaning to bring this up a while now, but haven't been sure how to about it, and there was always some other topic in full swing. Now that there's a lull, I think nows a good time to talk about this.

Atheism+ and Skepchick.

If you don't know what these two things mean, I'll give you a run down. Atheism+ is just Atheists who advocate 'social justice', as in being more proactive, which sounds great, but so far it's just been a divisive and deceptively worded big cousin to the Skepchicks. Skepchicks, or 'skeptic chicks', are feminists within the Atheist community who threw up such a colossal fuss about a 'pandemic of serial sexism in Atheist conventions', to the point of women being afraid to go alone for being raped. As you might have guessed, this is exaggerated, to the point of completely made up, as no such problem existed at any point, but the movement was taken seriously and now many influential Atheists like Russel Glasser, Matt Dillahunty and PZ Meyers have signed on and merged it with the whole Atheism+ thing.

If this all sounds very negative, it's because, clearly, I don't like what their doing. I honestly wouldn't be upset if they were just bloggers, but the problem is that they are enforcing this 'social justice' nonesense on the conventions, which are extremely important right now in legitimizing Atheism in a highly religious part of the world. So far, it's all been thought crimes and unnecessary rules against imaginary infractions, like banning t-shirts that 'may offend attenders'. That kind of loose wording has just given them a free ticket to oppress anything they find 'offensive'.

To put it much more bluntly, social thugs and feminazi's have hijacked the conventions, and it could do real harm to Atheism in America.

I realize how biased my own opinion must sound, so I welcome a more open discussion on the topic. What does the Theists and Atheists of Elliquiy think about Atheism+, Skepchicks, and Atheist Conventions? I'll leave some food for thought here.


If you think that that is what the whole "social movement" linked with Atheism is all about, then you have no concept of being female and atheist.  I can't say that there is a problem for me personally with being scared at conventions, because I don't go to them, but I think that's just a tiny little portion of what's happening here. 

If you think that this is unnecessary, if you think that women are 'feminazis' and are 'hijacking' the movement, then you really are prejudiced. 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/02/01/high-school-atheist-wins-unsurprising-court-case-gets-death-threats-why/

This is what I mean.  I realize that the comments here are from Christians, but this is why women need more rights. And if you think that it is solely from Christians, think again.

http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/

This is, of course, from the skepchick site itself. It's a collection of reasons why you are wrong.  You are wrong to use words like 'feminazi.'  You are wrong to put the word 'offensive' in quotes.  You are wrong to judge what women should and shouldn't be scared of.  If it bothers you, then talk about it reasonably.  But using words like Feminazi is not reasonable, it's a hate word.  Yes, I'm angry about your post.

And before you go and say that it's just bloggers getting this kind of attention, I'd like you to consider one thing.  Is it only men who read the blogs?

Every woman who follows Skepchick sees the comment threads there, they read the hate speech, hear the threats.  If it were private messages only, to Rebecca or Greta Christina or Jen McCreight, or any of the other big names in feminist atheism, then that would be one thing.  But it isn't.  It's there, for every reader to see, for every woman to see.

I saw the whole 'elevator gate' thing unfold.  You can agree or disagree with Rebecca's assessment of how someone should behave on an elevator.  But the fact is that it's her blog, and she can express her opinions there about what she finds acceptable, and if you want to argue with that, you can comment.  Does that mean that a string, hundreds of comments long, of hate speech is warranted?  Because that is what is happening.  I watched those comments roll in.  I heard what the men were saying, and even some of the women.  I saw the death threats, the rape threats, over and over. 

So yes.  I WOULD fear for my safety around those people.  I wouldn't go to TAM without my husband or a friend.  Ever.  Because THOSE PEOPLE are going to be there, the ones who publicly threaten women on a daily basis.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 12:30:04 PM by Bandita »

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #871 on: April 05, 2013, 12:45:15 PM »
If you think that this is unnecessary, if you think that women are 'feminazis' and are 'hijacking' the movement, then you really are prejudiced.

Please show me where I said all women are feminazi's.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #872 on: April 05, 2013, 01:04:34 PM »
If you think that that is what the whole "social movement" linked with Atheism is all about, then you have no concept of being female and atheist.  I can't say that there is a problem for me personally with being scared at conventions, because I don't go to them, but I think that's just a tiny little portion of what's happening here. 

If you think that this is unnecessary, if you think that women are 'feminazis' and are 'hijacking' the movement, then you really are prejudiced. 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/02/01/high-school-atheist-wins-unsurprising-court-case-gets-death-threats-why/

This is what I mean.  I realize that the comments here are from Christians, but this is why women need more rights. And if you think that it is solely from Christians, think again.

http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/

This is, of course, from the skepchick site itself. It's a collection of reasons why you are wrong.  You are wrong to use words like 'feminazi.'  You are wrong to put the word 'offensive' in quotes.  You are wrong to judge what women should and shouldn't be scared of.  If it bothers you, then talk about it reasonably.  But using words like Feminazi is not reasonable, it's a hate word.  Yes, I'm angry about your post.

And before you go and say that it's just bloggers getting this kind of attention, I'd like you to consider one thing.  Is it only men who read the blogs?

Every woman who follows Skepchick sees the comment threads there, they read the hate speech, hear the threats.  If it were private messages only, to Rebecca or Greta Christina or Jen McCreight, or any of the other big names in feminist atheism, then that would be one thing.  But it isn't.  It's there, for every reader to see, for every woman to see.

I saw the whole 'elevator gate' thing unfold.  You can agree or disagree with Rebecca's assessment of how someone should behave on an elevator.  But the fact is that it's her blog, and she can express her opinions there about what she finds acceptable, and if you want to argue with that, you can comment.  Does that mean that a string, hundreds of comments long, of hate speech is warranted?  Because that is what is happening.  I watched those comments roll in.  I heard what the men were saying, and even some of the women.  I saw the death threats, the rape threats, over and over. 

So yes.  I WOULD fear for my safety around those people.  I wouldn't go to TAM without my husband or a friend.  Ever.  Because THOSE PEOPLE are going to be there, the ones who publicly threaten women on a daily basis.

I think the point here is that, at least the way I see it (don't quote me on this - I'm not exactly very involved or knowledgable on the topics outside the big Dongle thing recently) that a huge majority of the Skepchick movement is addressing a problem which doesn't exist and is therefore, ironically, further spreading the idea that this non-problem is a problem. Not only is it advertising to the religious community that Atheists are apparently exactly what they thought we are (Oh, look! Now they're Atheists, and they can't stop all the rape and murder I said that Atheists commit! I knew morals came from God!), but it then further scares people thinking of attending because they're not under the impression that rape and assault against women at conferances are a common occurance.

Lets take cosplay conventions, for example; I've been to one or two in my time, and I had a fun time. As a man, I can't say I was haressed or groped, but from sources I've seen online, it sounds like it's an epidemic. I find it hard to believe it's -that- common, but I don't deny that I suspect it's not -uncommon-. It's a convention of people ranging from attractive women in revealing outfits through to socially awkward nerds and perverts. I'm sure if I did some research, I'd find that the cases weren't as near as widespread as I assume, but going solely by the horror stories I've heard, it sounds like most anime conventions are orgies of sexual offenses against women dressed like Batgirl and Bayonetta.

I also havn't done any research into these cases of rape threats and such at skeptic conventions. If I went solely by what the Skepchicks say, every convention is a heavily policed event because the slightest slip in security involves people who claim rationality and skepticism just devolving into packs of animals, hurling insults, rape threats and waving knives at women for 'daring to say how they feel'.

Similarly with Youtube videos. Lots of skepchick videos I've seen claim the sheer amounts of Youtube harassment they've had, but none of this offense is ever shown. Most of the videos are heavily censored to stop people adding their opinions or even hurling offense, if that was what they wanted to do.

I find your ideas on the Page 'o Hate a little unreasonable, personally; it reminds me far too much of arguements used to denounce anyone who has an opinion which clashes with the religion. "Well, you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong, as documented by the Catholic Church. Disagreement and your own thoughts on how rational these are is not your opinion, it just means that you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong. You're not a Catholic, you're not allowed an opinion on if Catholicism is true or not."

I'm trying to avoid going too indepth, as I understand this is a pretty sensitive topic to peoples and I, admittedly, havn't looked into it too heavily and to judge the entirity of the Skepchick/Atheism+ movement from what little I've seen would be ridiculous of me. What little I have seen does have me wary of it's speakers but as I say, I'm not hugely informed on this topic.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 01:20:44 PM by Vanity Evolved »

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #873 on: April 05, 2013, 01:04:59 PM »
Bandita, you clearly have the wrong idea, so I need to rephrase my objection to save misunderstands.

No, I have no problem with feminism.

No, I have no problem with proactive social reform/advancement tied into critical thinking and equal right.

So neither of those have anything to do with my objection to Atheism+ and Skepchicks.

What I AM against is the use of deceptive wording and emotional pleas to divide a movement, create an 'us or them' mentality, censor free speech and generally demonize open discussion.

That is what I see coming from this movement. That is what I make my comments in response to, and nothing more.

Please read what I have just written in detail Bandita, as I do not appreciate being accused of things I haven't said.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #874 on: April 05, 2013, 01:37:04 PM »
What does the Theists and Atheists of Elliquiy think about Atheism+, Skepchicks, and Atheist Conventions?

I would go with "it's a pity the perceived threat to atheism isn't misogynist coward douchebags who meet women's attempts to raise concerns about harassment at conventions with a campaign of threats of violence up to & including rape & murder, rather than mean feminist meanies who are being mean because they hate fun".

But I guess that's just me.