Author: Academic Atheism

Atheism Has A Problem

psiotechniqa:

mitchfynde:

th3r0ckexec:

academicatheism:

I posted on Black Lives Matter and immediately lost about 30 followers. No debate, no pissing match, no controversial opinion has ever lost me that many followers. The problem here is that this wasn’t a debate, a pissing match, or a controversial opinion. It was a post about a social necessity. I responded to the “all lives matter” crowd. And I was naive to think that the stereotypes about atheists weren’t true. Atheists are cis, white males with neck beards and fedoras they say. This I thought was attempt at insult, a distraction from our challenges to religion. Unfortunately, I found out that the stereotype contains a truth: atheists are predominantly white males. 

Given that, I’m suggesting something controversial, but this doesn’t make it any less true. White atheists are not sympathetic to minority social movements. I am not saying you’re racist. Neither am I saying that you help proliferate prejudice and discrimination of minorities. What I am saying is that you’re disconnected from the reality Black Americans face; you’re disconnected from the realities Latino Americans face. I am a Latino American. I suggested in the post that perhaps that’s why I can identify with BLM. I get it. Police don’t racially profile you. You don’t have glass ceilings. Your name can’t disqualify you from getting a job. But some things atheists should be better than the average religious person at are relating to people, empathy, and a capacity to sympathize with the hardships of other people. Just because you don’t understand BLM doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Or maybe the issue is that you think so called social justice has no place in atheism. Again, you show that you’re disconnected. It’s easier for some of you to break away from your own traditions. It’s much harder for minorities to part ways with the masters. In other words, it’s harder for us to break away from literal centuries of discrimination and oppression stemming from “the white man’s religion.” Our cultures were infiltrated, erased, and reconstructed in accordance to the colonialist’s image. We were given a suitable identity; we were given a system of morals, which stemmed from a religion they handed down to us. This religion was, to their minds, truer than our religions; their god realer than any of ours; their rituals more potent, their book better written, and their way of life more valid. A lot of us risk being disowned by our own family; we risk becoming homeless; we risk being physically threatened. 

So there’s no doubt in my mind that social issues have a place in atheism. Feminism likewise has its place. The notion that atheism has a woman problem is very real, but this mass unfollowing showed me that atheism also has a minority problem. Atheism’s identity, like philosophy’s and like religion’s, is Eurocentric. Its face is a white man’s face; its voice a white man’s voice. One look at the Four Horsemen or any of the prominent atheists that followed them–Michael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll, Jerry A. Coyne, A.C. Grayling, Stephen Law–shows this to be true. The Black voice, the Latino voice, the voice of any non-white is secondary or entirely nonexistent. Atheism should not have taken in the dirty laundry of the religions it primarily opposes. We should not have adopted Christianity’s colonialism, Judaism’s group identity, Hinduism’s class hierarchy, or Islam’s patriarchy. Yet here we are!

If any more of you want to unfollow, feel free to do so. I’m a minority; I’m an atheist. I have proven myself as capable, if not, more capable than some of my white male counterparts. I do not need your validation. I don’t need your recognition or seal of approval. In short, if you don’t recognize the social ills adopted by atheists, I don’t need you.

Keep toting those old Steve Shives talking points and go back to your safe space. I thought you were rational at once. “Atheism has a woman problem” HOW?!

I tried to read this post and I went blind…. from boredom. 

So… OP is angry that the atheist community isn’t SJW enough?

wow…

Unfortunately, I found out that the stereotype contains a truth: atheists are predominantly white males.

Given that, I’m suggesting something controversial, but this doesn’t make it any less true. White atheists are not sympathetic to minority social movements. I am not saying you’re racist.

No, you are saying that white atheists are racist… fucking own up to it. You want white atheists to completely submit to the SJW bullshit you happen to like, because… you like that stuff.

fucking hell

You are a marquee example of one of the White male atheists who miss the point. Other people who reblogged anticipated replies like yours. Maybe some White male atheists are racists. Maybe you’re a racist. That remains to be seen. I, however, never accused all White male atheists of racism. I accused them of lacking sympathy for minorities and women. That’s entirely different and when you go on about “SJW bullshit,” you serve as case in point.

The term “SJW” has been adopted by two groups who would otherwise be at odds: White male atheist and White male Christians. Doesn’t that strike you? Most of the so-called anti-SJW bloggers are White male Christians. What’s more is that the term “SJW” has been adopted to invalidate worthwhile social movements like Black Lives Matter and feminism. I’ve seen White male atheists reblog and make the same claim White Christians make: “BLM is a racist movement.” And I safely assume you think the kneeling protest in the NFL was a protest against the American flag and by extension, American values.

The point is simple: you lack sympathy for these movements because you don’t understand them. You prefer your perception of feminism and BLM over the reality of what each movement strives for. That doesn’t necessarily make you a racist or a misogynist, but it does make you inept and uninformed, and disinterested in standing corrected. I can walk you through what each movement strives for while asking you to keep in mind that feminism takes different shapes around the world because women in different parts of the world face different challenges from women here in the states.

A refusal to accept correction or listen to an explanation of what the movements strive for will only prove what I concluded at the onset: you and other White male atheists lack sympathy for such social movements. Do not pretend that I said anything else by putting words in my mouth. I don’t beat around the bush; if I had ample evidence proving that you are a racist or misogynist, I would call you out without hesitation, and I would work to have you removed from this platform. As far as I know, you aren’t a racist or a misogynist. I’m content with recognizing that you’re severely misinformed and all too comfortable with labels like “SJW.” You have abandoned Christianity, but not its way of thinking; so it’s no wonder you explicitly agree with White male Christians.

Regular

I often think that the loss of the works of Democritus in their entirety is the greatest intellectual tragedy to ensue from the collapse of the old classical civilization…We have been left with all of Aristotle, by way of which Western thought reconstructed itself, and nothing of Democritus. Perhaps if all the works of Democritus had survived, and nothing of Aristotle’s, the intellectual history of our civilization would have been better … But centuries dominated by monotheism have not permitted the survival of Democritus’s naturalism. The closure of the ancient schools such as those of Athens and Alexandria, and the destruction of all the texts not in accordance with Christian ideas was vast and systematic, at the time of the brutal antipagan repression following from the edicts of Emperor Theodisius, which in 390-391 declared that Christianity was to be the only and obligatory religion of the empire. Plato and Aristotle, pagans who believed in the immortality of the soul or in the existence of a Prime Mover, could be tolerated by a triumphant Christianity. Not Democritus.

Carlo Rovelli “Reality is Not What It Seems” pp. 32-33

“Fuck you, I like guns.”

“Fuck you, I like guns.”:

ravenfirethief:

academicatheism:

ravenfirethief:

academicatheism:

Stop what you’re doing and read this!

I read it. The first commenter nailed it. The author of the article lost me as soon as he called it exceptionally deadly. There are two primary reasons that the Pentagon switched to the M16 from the M14::

1. More ammunition, because

2. It’s less deadly. 

For some reason, despite everything intelligence was telling the Pentagon about the enemies the US was facing during the 60s, some bean-counters in the Pentagon refused to believe that Viet Cong wouldn’t abandon their men to be cared for by the Americans when they were wounded, and would instead send more men out to be shot just like the first. And this despite what the troops in the field were telling them. That’s one of the reasons American soldiers got AK47s as fast as they could capture them. Unlike an M16, you didn’t need a full magazine to kill someone, since it was a more powerful weapon (not as powerful as an M14, but still better than an M16), and it didn’t break down every fifth shot the way an M16 did.

That’s right. The M16 was designed to be LESS DEADLY than the standard military rifle of the time, because REMFs in Washington DC were under delusions that no soldier who had ever been in the field could understand.

Beyond that, the article just repeatedly spews the usual anti-gun bile, from someone who, if he actually WAS in the military, clearly hadn’t ever faced actual combat, because if he had he’d have known that what he was spewing was bullshit.

So what you’re saying is that your toys matter more than the lives of grade school children? Because of this ad hominem, “he wasn’t in the military” or “he wasn’t active in combat” (aside from strong suggestions that the author is actually a woman, so how can we be sure you read anything?), you now conclude that an AR-15 is safe for public use. Any 18 year old should own one without a permit that’s renewed and regulated like permits and licenses to drive, sell and distribute liquor, and so on. Your toys matter more than lives. The Second Amendment is fixed and not open to interpretation. The Constitution isn’t a living document, so I guess we should organize into militias while we are at it.

But yes, please do tell where we draw the line? If an AR-15, why not a rocket launcher? Why not an Apache or a tank or a fighter jet? What is meant by the right to bear arms and what about an AR-15 makes me more capable to hunt or stop would-be burglars? Why can’t I do that with guns that aren’t also used to rip through public places like theaters, schools, churches, and so on? Do tell! Your response is laced with a lot of empty, emotional, politically biased rhetoric. Answer my questions. Give me good arguments as to why people should be able to own an AR-15. 

Congratulations. You have just leaped to conclusions, and made unwarranted attacks, that are not based on anything I wrote.

Aww, what’s the matter? My questions are too adult for you? I’m not against gun ownership, full stop. I wouldn’t oppose gun ownership if not for the ubiquity of mass shootings in this country. Please understand that. So of course I’m going to “jump to conclusions” when it sounds like you’re defending gun ownership despite the recent shootings, 18 school shootings this year alone. It’s only February 17th by the way. So answer my questions or admit that you really can’t defend your point of view. That’s what I suspect and you’re proving me right. 

“Fuck you, I like guns.”

“Fuck you, I like guns.”:

ravenfirethief:

academicatheism:

Stop what you’re doing and read this!

I read it. The first commenter nailed it. The author of the article lost me as soon as he called it exceptionally deadly. There are two primary reasons that the Pentagon switched to the M16 from the M14::

1. More ammunition, because

2. It’s less deadly. 

For some reason, despite everything intelligence was telling the Pentagon about the enemies the US was facing during the 60s, some bean-counters in the Pentagon refused to believe that Viet Cong wouldn’t abandon their men to be cared for by the Americans when they were wounded, and would instead send more men out to be shot just like the first. And this despite what the troops in the field were telling them. That’s one of the reasons American soldiers got AK47s as fast as they could capture them. Unlike an M16, you didn’t need a full magazine to kill someone, since it was a more powerful weapon (not as powerful as an M14, but still better than an M16), and it didn’t break down every fifth shot the way an M16 did.

That’s right. The M16 was designed to be LESS DEADLY than the standard military rifle of the time, because REMFs in Washington DC were under delusions that no soldier who had ever been in the field could understand.

Beyond that, the article just repeatedly spews the usual anti-gun bile, from someone who, if he actually WAS in the military, clearly hadn’t ever faced actual combat, because if he had he’d have known that what he was spewing was bullshit.

So what you’re saying is that your toys matter more than the lives of grade school children? Because of this ad hominem, “he wasn’t in the military” or “he wasn’t active in combat” (aside from strong suggestions that the author is actually a woman, so how can we be sure you read anything?), you now conclude that an AR-15 is safe for public use. Any 18 year old should own one without a permit that’s renewed and regulated like permits and licenses to drive, sell and distribute liquor, and so on. Your toys matter more than lives. The Second Amendment is fixed and not open to interpretation. The Constitution isn’t a living document, so I guess we should organize into militias while we are at it.

But yes, please do tell where we draw the line? If an AR-15, why not a rocket launcher? Why not an Apache or a tank or a fighter jet? What is meant by the right to bear arms and what about an AR-15 makes me more capable to hunt or stop would-be burglars? Why can’t I do that with guns that aren’t also used to rip through public places like theaters, schools, churches, and so on? Do tell! Your response is laced with a lot of empty, emotional, politically biased rhetoric. Answer my questions. Give me good arguments as to why people should be able to own an AR-15. 

“Fuck you, I like guns.”

“Fuck you, I like guns.”:

Stop what you’re doing and read this!

Keeping god out of schools by supposedly prohi…

Regular post

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

philosophycorner:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

philosophycorner: Disclaimer: None of the exam…

philosophycorner:

Disclaimer: None of the examples I use are my own personal views of any one person or group.

I don’t consider his examples of hate speech to be hate speech. Censoring a Bible verse that promotes anti-Semitism is not the same as censoring a living, breathing individual saying, like one person I got banned from Tumblr, “put Jews in ovens.” Verses promoting hatred against Jews, Christians, practitioners of other religions, homosexuals, and women are often overlooked because religious people, especially in the West, tend to be pacifist moderates – and thank goodness! The hate speech I have in mind is the hate speech of the alt-right, White supremacists who have turned their hate speech into hate crimes.

When a little boy is lynched, in the modern day, there’s a problem. When these same White supremacists become police officers and cut the life of Trayvon Martin short, there’s a problem. When these same officers are choking and shooting Blacks and getting away with it, there’s a problem. The hate speech of the alt-right and a huge number of Trump supporters has translated into hate crimes: beatings, lynchings, shootings, and even a case in where a crazed driver mowed down some 20 people, injuring 19 of them and killing one. Unless we focus on extremists, the hate speech of the religious is more so an annoyance that their religion doesn’t prove itself true by winning everyone over; the mere fact that other religions exist is irritating to some Christians and sometimes that’ll lead to derisive speech against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so on.

That doesn’t, however, translate to a Christian murdering a huge number of Muslims or Hindus or what have you. Sure (!), it’s happened, most recently in Norway. In such cases, it’s best to consider the kind of speech being used. “I hate Jews because they crucified our Lord and Savior” is a far cry from “I hate Jews and they should be put in ovens.” “I hate Muslims because to them Jesus is a mere prophet that’s inferior to Muhammad” is a far cry from “I hate Muslims and I think we should murder them where they stand.” As with anything, there’s nuance; there are degrees. People like dichotomies and binaries and Hitchens, for all the talk of small prefrontal lobes and the idiocy of our species, falls into the same trap of making this a black and white issue. It’s not!

The gray areas are there! How many of us, in general, speak to the air when we’re angry and say “oooohhhh, I could kill someone right now!” Does this qualify as hate speech? Not necessarily, especially since it’s directed at no one in particular. And how many of us actually go out and kill someone because we’re angry? Now, if you go to church and are made to feel vile because they talk about the lifestyles of a homosexual or a promiscuous individual, and you then get so angry that you talk about killing Christians, now we have a problem! So before you even have the chance to hurt one of the congregants, you should either be hit with a fine or put in jail for, at the very least, a misdemeanor. When you have Bible Belt Christians threatening to put a shot in me if I ever step foot in their state, that’s dangerous hate speech against atheists. When you have a politician or public figure fueling hate against a religious or ethnic group, you have an individual who is attempting to incite violence against a group of people.

Joshua Feuerstein, for instance, is on record saying that BLM protestors should be filled with lead because, to his small mind, they’re a threat to police. Protesting police brutality isn’t a protest against police; it isn’t a call to arms against the police. It isn’t even a call to arms against racist officers. It’s a call for departments in every state to screen their would-be officers; it’s a call for stricter background checks and more important, it’s a call to acquit these officers should they abuse the power of their badge!

There’s no hate in that, but there’s certainly hate in asking people to fill BLM protestors with lead. Joshua Feuerstein, for that reason and a host of others (e.g., letting his kids handle firearms), should already be serving the minimum sentence for a felony, a full seven years. That kind of hate speech, especially when you have millions of subscribers who admire you, is unacceptable! Hate speech, like pretty much anything, has degrees of severity. It can be as minor as “I hate so and so sports player for hurting my team’s chances and I’d kick him right in the ACL if I could!” to “I hate so and so group of people and I’d love to watch them suffocate.” The former is minor and is that sort of heat-of-the-moment thing you find when people are watching sports events; the latter is repulsive and should be prosecuted the same way a crime should. We shouldn’t wait for someone to be injured or murdered to take action.

The US, at the moment, is filled with hate against minorities and women. The ICE is snatching up immigrants while they’re trying to make a living for their families. They’re not doing anything wrong and here they are being treated like animals. This is all because of an Administration that has declared war on everything the Left stands for. Religious freedom only matters for Christians; human rights belongs only to citizens and men – and at this (!), not even all men, but White men; even children’s rights are being violated as there’s been an assault on education in inner cities.

Speaking about Mexicans, women, Blacks, and Muslims in such generalities has fueled much of the hatred we see. We are literally in a time in where Trump supporters think the country belongs solely to them and not also to people who stand for everything they’re against. Enough is enough! This video isn’t a defense of free speech. It’s tip toeing around what severe hate speech looks like. “Hasidic Jews look funny” is anti-Semitic no doubt, but it’s not hate speech. All freedoms have limits and that’s been lost when it comes to freedom of speech, so as long as people are free to say whatever manner of violence they think, they’ll act on those thoughts as well. And if that’s a rod for my own back, it’s only because I’m dumb enough to be a hypocrite and speak in a violent and hateful manner about a given group. That’ll be my own fault. But aside from racists, who have drawn first blood for centuries, I have never incited hatred against a group; nor have I called for the injury or deaths of groups I disagree with. People lack nuance and any defense of free speech that defends hate speech proves that.

Here are 8 ways the religious right wins conve…

Here are 8 ways the religious right wins converts – to atheism

By Valerie Tarico

If the Catholic Bishops, their Evangelical Protestant allies, and other Right-wing fundamentalists had the sole objective of decimating religious belief, they couldn’t be doing a better job of it.

Testimonials at sites like ExChristian.net show that people leave religion for a number of reasons, many of which religious leaders have very little control over. Sometimes, for example, people take one too many science classes. Sometimes they find their faith shattered by the suffering in the world – either because of a devastating injury or loss in their own lives or because they experience the realities of another person’s pain in a new way. Sometimes a believer gets intrigued by archaeology or symbology or the study of religion itself. Sometimes a believer simply picks up a copy of the Bible or Koran and discovers faith-shaking contradictions or immoralities there.

Continue Reading

academicatheism: Happy Holidays to all.  Love…

academicatheism:

Happy Holidays to all.  Love you all.