Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (suicide, pray, behavior)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And truth is important enough to me to engage with unsubstantiated claims robustly, intellectually and diligently. And if someone wants to misconstrue my robustness and diligence as hostility and toxicity.... then that is their false narrative and error. Not mine.
if you consider the behaviors of name-calling, insults, condescension, ridicule, mocking, belittling, sarcasm, and berating to be "robust, intellectual, and diligent" then you have a ways to go in learning and practicing effective tools of communication.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-24-2016 at 09:09 AM..
^ And again what you describe above is nothing to do with atheists per se but with all human groups.
I've said a half dozen times that the problem is fundamentalism, not atheism. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what's being posted in the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Every movement has it's bad apples
Who are the bad apples in the non-profit humanitarian aid movement? The Red Cross? So, no; not everyone movement is controversial enough to have "bad apples". Regardless, even among movements that do have bad apples, different movements demonstrate different levels of success with avoiding and correcting public misconceptions about them. A good example of this are the Mormons. Their bad apples aren't just rude, the practice of their religion has been found by our courts to constitute felonious child sexual assault. How is it then that they are regarded so much more favorably than atheists? Answer: They speak out more forcefully against the disreputable acts of the extremists than non-Mormons do. The analog to that would be the reasonable atheists speaking out against the behavior of fundamentalist atheists highlighted in this thread more strongly than theists do. However, we're not seeing that in this thread, are we? And if that's indicative of the relative permissiveness of such bad behavior among atheists more generally, that explains why atheists are so poorly regarded in the nation.
I've said a half dozen times that the problem is fundamentalism, not atheism. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what's being posted in the discussion.
The analog to that would be the reasonable atheists speaking out against the behavior of fundamentalist atheists highlighted in this thread more strongly than theists do. However, we're not seeing that in this thread, are we? And if that's indicative of the relative permissiveness of such bad behavior among atheists more generally, that explains why atheists are so poorly regarded in the nation.
what we see on CD is that the opposite happens, and we see it regularly on this forum.
others jump in and do "damage control" by defending, justifying, even glorifying the toxic behavior, stating "it's a virtue, not a vice."
I've said a half dozen times that the problem is fundamentalism, not atheism. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what's being posted in the discussion.
Who are the bad apples in the non-profit humanitarian aid movement? The Red Cross? So, no; not everyone movement is controversial enough to have "bad apples". Regardless, even among movements that do have bad apples, different movements demonstrate different levels of success with avoiding and correcting public misconceptions about them. A good example of this are the Mormons. Their bad apples aren't just rude, the practice of their religion has been found by our courts to constitute felonious child sexual assault. How is it then that they are regarded so much more favorably than atheists? Answer: They speak out more forcefully against the disreputable acts of the extremists than non-Mormons do. The analog to that would be the reasonable atheists speaking out against the behavior of fundamentalist atheists highlighted in this thread more strongly than theists do. However, we're not seeing that in this thread, are we? And if that's indicative of the relative permissiveness of such bad behavior among atheists more generally, that explains why atheists are so poorly regarded in the nation.
We are not seeing atheists jumping on what you call 'fundamentalist' (or extremist) atheists, because there aren't any except in your prejudiced view. We speak out and that's what you don't like. Nozz is a handy weapon to use to brand us all as being the same and therefore extremist or fundamentalist. Because he doesn't mince words. But he talks straight.
Furthermore, it has been said elsewhere that the beef is with our supposed 'instransigence' in not accepting cosmic mind or afterlife claims without good evidence. None of ths justifies talk of extremism or fundamentalism, and never mind calls for the rest of atheism to descend on these "bad apples". Not accepting inadequately supported claims is what atheism does. Speaking out is what active or "militant" (my preferred term) do. There is nothing wrong in taking a logical view and saying so, There is something wrong is a campaign of divide-and rule vilification by those who don't like to hear it.
There is nothing wrong in taking a logical view and saying so
there is nothing logical, intellectual, or rational
about behaving in ways that are not.
there's a handy dandy thread topic right there: "When you see this behavior in posts (name-calling, insults, condescension, sarcasm, belittling, berating) what does it say to you about the person posting? How does it affect your opinion of the person posting?"
it would be interesting to see how many responders say "when I see that behavior my opinion of the poster really goes up, because I can see how logical, rational, and intellectual they are."
there is nothing logical, intellectual, or rational
about behaving in ways that are not.
there's a handy dandy thread topic right there: "When you see this behavior in posts (name-calling, insults, condescension, sarcasm, belittling, berating) what does it say to you about the person posting? How does it affect your opinion of the person posting?"
it would be interesting to see how many responders say "when I see that behavior my opinion of the poster really goes up, because I can see how logical, rational, and intellectual they are."
TZ, I mus t say your dogmatic insistence on your own personal Forum Decorumâ„¢ is itself a form of harassment.
Rather than engage those you find worthwhile to engage with, you continue to verbally harass people who do not adhere to your standards. And when it is not equally applied to those who are fellow theists, including yourself, it is a glaring example of confirmation bias.
I think you are better than that, and suspect you may not even be aware of it, but do hope you reflect on what I find to be apparent and obvious.
TZ, I mus t say your dogmatic insistence on your own personal Forum Decorumâ„¢ is itself a form of harassment.
Rather than engage those you find worthwhile to engage with, you continue to verbally harass people who do not adhere to your standards. And when it is not equally applied to those who are fellow theists, including yourself, it is a glaring example of confirmation bias.
I think you are better than that, and suspect you may not even be aware of it, but do hope you reflect on what I find to be apparent and obvious.
Tzaph is right.
We are the ones that are messed up.
You know she is telling it like it is. Just cop to it.
That it isn't applied equally is not true. She has flamed me to a crisp before. Personally, no less. But, it had merit...so...
VP is at best 5% correct and we didn't need him to tell us anyway. This current ploy of trying to shame atheism into invisibility as it was in the good old Silent Days is not new and is even less likely to work than it did then.
The opposite: be proud of atheism and show the world you can be awesome humans without belief. THAT is the way to be vocal atheism.
How did you miss the name calling in the OP's post?
Yes, I make fun the THE MINORITY of atheists who wear fedoras and go on rants about "evvvillll" religion. I also make fun of the MINORITY of Christians who believe Jesus was was white and chose Trump to lead America back to "JEEEEZZZZUSSSS" and get rid of "dim Muzzies and dem Mexi-cans"
I see nothing fundamentalist about listening to someones claim and noticing they have no substantiation for it.
There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is a god or an after life. Least of all from anyone on this thread. Therefore I do not accept the claim that either of those things exist.
Yes, because it is based on faith. I have no scientific evidence, data or proof that would hold up in a lab. And yet I still believe because I chose to.
I do not hold a 100% positivist, rationalist world-view so arguments about "facts" and "science" don't work on me. I made my choice to believe based on faith. Hence, any argument in this arena would have to be philosophical, not scientific.
And most people on Earth agree with me, even if they don't say it out loud. You will not convince me with scientific facts or data or whatever anymore than I will convince you by reading the Gospel of Thomas or Pistis Sophia.
But, we can both certainly convince the bulk of mankind to respect the rights of all to practice any religion or none at all if we approach them respectfully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
