Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

[essentialsaltes]

You can see the divide, such as it is, in the recent squabbling about the anti-harassment code of conduct policy at the Reason Rally. Dave Silverman and DJ Grothe get into it.

Some people see it as reasonable. Some see it as so objectionable to their liberty that they will not attend. I suppose the proof will be in the implementation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm surprised there is so much hostility to SJA's among atheists. Then again, maybe I should not be. The SJA movement grew out of the wider progressive movement, which was highly influenced by religion (albeit usually of a liberal variety), and imported the moral categories of religion to talk about social issues.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The SJA movement grew out of the wider progressive movement, which was highly influenced by religion (albeit usually of a liberal variety), and imported the moral categories of religion to talk about social issues.

Which moral categories would those be?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

Which moral categories would those be?

The focus on sin, guilt, and atonement/redemption. Modern, secular SJA's may not use those words or understand those concepts in the same way, but the sentiments are the same.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yeah, me too.

My earliest introduction was to Richard Dawkins, and that's only because I had read his book The Selfish Gene, which was mildly interesting. But that was already several years after becoming an atheist, and I didn't pay much attention to Richard Dawkins for many years after that. And even that attention was just watching a handful of youtube videos.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Me three. Not for one second in my life have I ever believed in anything called a 'god'.

The concept of a 'leader' of atheism is an invention of the unimaginitive religious. They're so used to having their philosophies dictated by supreme authority, they project it on other people.

 

[variant]

I'm surprised there is so much hostility to SJA's among atheists. Then again, maybe I should not be. The SJA movement grew out of the wider progressive movement, which was highly influenced by religion (albeit usually of a liberal variety), and imported the moral categories of religion to talk about social issues.

It depends on what argument the SJA's are making. I remember once reading a piece by a SJA about how it was atheists fault (in general) that so few women become atheists. It went on to criticize a few people who were vocal atheists and things that they had said (which I didn't find objectionable at all) about why it is that atheism doesn't appeal to women as much as men. The article then went on to blame atheism for attracting few women.

So I thought:

First of all I don't exactly proselytize, as creating more atheists isn't necessary and I have never felt much success when speaking with believers about why their beliefs are wrong.

Second of all, just because more men have become atheists (or are willing to call themselves that openly) doesn't make anything about atheism sexist, it just means it, as a world view appeals to men more than women for whatever reason.

Third of all, it then when off on a tangent about how all these other issues should get tied up in atheism to make atheism a hug space where all sorts of other ideas were championed (atheism plus) regardless of atheism being a very narrow idea.

My problem is this: You win my support on issues by winning my support on issues with rational well thought out arguments and proper persuasion. Appealing to my "belief identity" and trying to say that these other things go along with that isn't going to cut it.

Such people seem to say they dislike organized religion, but they certainly don't seem to have a problem with the same sort of social coercion that I remember from my days of belonging to one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, on the other hand people who denigrate people as "SJWs" and "crybullies" are usually people who spend a lot of time defending their inate right to be jerks.

We do have a right to be jerks, to be politically incorrect, to not have to police what we say so much that it takes 15 minutes to construct a sentence, and I still manage to offend someone. I have the right to think that slavery and abortion are not comparable issues, to the point that trying to say which is worse is futile, but the SJWs have a nuclear meltdown if I express it. I have the right to personally not be comfortable being in a hypothetical relationship with a transgendered person just as much as an asexual has the right to not feel comfortable being in any relationship, yet I would be harassed as a bigot by an SJW. It's getting to the point that if I say I prefer lemons over watermelons, I'm going to be called "fruitist" or something.

Some of these people seek to destroy freedom of speech, because "boo hoo, some trolls are saying sexist things on the internet". I'm not saying that every position has the moral high ground, but limiting the dissenting position will not make it cease to exist, and will only serve to put additional strain on society. There are limits as to what should be said and how it should be said, sure, but not to the extent SJWs want it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

CHRIS HALL, ALTERNET
25 MAY 2016 AT 00:18 ET

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/hit...atheism-is-on-the-rise/#.V0YmC0JQIW5.facebook

It may be different, but it isn't new ... It's just another permutation of Postmodernism in its Marxist style attempt to displace the stagnant political hegemony of Modernist, elitist voices. And the beat goes on ...

http://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2015/

2PhiloVoid

 

[FireDragon76]

Such people seem to say they dislike organized religion, but they certainly don't seem to have a problem with the same sort of social coercion that I remember from my days of belonging to one.

It's the cultural Marxism underlying a lot of SJA's thought. There was an Eastern Orthodox theologian who said Marxism is the last Christian heresy. Marxism is very much like Christianity in its basic shape. There is an eschatological goal, a soteriology, an original sin (false consciousness), and so on. Of course it's materialistic and atheistic. But that doesn't change its Christian character. Marx was a student of Hegel, who was a Christian, after all... he just took his teachers view of history in atheistic and materialistic directions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Should atheists be concerned about matters of social justice? Yes, of course. Does being an atheist obligate one to do so? No. As I see it, the problem the Atheism Plus is that it attempts to force a, dare I say it, religious obligation on all atheists to identify with particular social concerns. It attempts to make those concerns intrinsic to being an atheist, when they are not. Being an atheist means only that one does not believe in gods. It neither precludes nor obligates caring about social justice.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's the cultural Marxism underlying a lot of SJA's thought. There was an Eastern Orthodox theologian who said Marxism is the last Christian heresy. Marxism is very much like Christianity in its basic shape. There is an eschatological goal, a soteriology, an original sin (false consciousness), and so on. Of course it's materialistic and atheistic. But that doesn't change its Christian character. Marx was a student of Hegel, who was a Christian, after all... he just took his teachers view of history in atheistic and materialistic directions.

I agree about the cultural marxism (and that is a HUGE issue I have against recent feminisms), but never made the tie to any form of Christianity. However, you have a good point here. There is a feeling of "cultishness" to these movements, and that may explain why.

I just want to be clear on something. I'm not against cultural marxism because it has some tie to Christian moral concepts. I'm against it because it is collectivist in approach, and precisely for that reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

We do have a right to be jerks, to be politically incorrect, to not have to police what we say so much that it takes 15 minutes to construct a sentence, and I still manage to offend someone.

Sure, but one of the irritating things about SJWs is that you can't disagree with them without instantly being labelled a "jerk", a "sexist", a "misogynist" (perhaps as "internalized misogyny" as revealed by their thetan level detectors), or an implicit supporter of "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". People can't even say that the new Ghostbusters film trailers are unfunny and disappointing without being labelled misogynists. SJWs seem inherently incapable of understanding the perspectives of their critics, and instantly resort to these ad hominems to protect their mental safe spaces. They would be more tolerable if they would at least try to avoid armchair psychologizing and misrepresenting critical views.

I'm not saying that every position has the moral high ground, but limiting the dissenting position will not make it cease to exist, and will only serve to put additional strain on society. There are limits as to what should be said and how it should be said, sure, but not to the extent SJWs want it.

Well said.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

We do have a right to be jerks, to be politically incorrect, to not have to police what we say so much that it takes 15 minutes to construct a sentence, and I still manage to offend someone. I have the right to think that slavery and abortion are not comparable issues, to the point that trying to say which is worse is futile, but the SJWs have a nuclear meltdown if I express it. I have the right to personally not be comfortable being in a hypothetical relationship with a transgendered person just as much as an asexual has the right to not feel comfortable being in any relationship, yet I would be harassed as a bigot by an SJW. It's getting to the point that if I say I prefer lemons over watermelons, I'm going to be called "fruitist" or something.

Some of these people seek to destroy freedom of speech, because "boo hoo, some trolls are saying sexist things on the internet". I'm not saying that every position has the moral high ground, but limiting the dissenting position will not make it cease to exist, and will only serve to put additional strain on society. There are limits as to what should be said and how it should be said, sure, but not to the extent SJWs want it.

Exaggeration usually is not a good way to go. Neither in promoting social justice nor in promoting personal liberty.
Having been on the receiving side of overenthusiastic promoters of, in my case, feminism, I can understand what you mean.

But I have also seen, more than once, that in the same way that you put it here in joking... that if you say you prefer lemons over watermelons, you are being called a "fruitist"... people make valid and reasonable statements about social problems and potential solutions and are shouted down as "political correctness nazis and social justice warriors".

There are limits as to what should be said and how it should be said, sure, but not to the extent SJWs want it.

So you think that there should be limits? But it should be the limits that you prefer, not the limits that "they" prefer?
Do you just try to limit my right to be a jerk?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exaggeration usually is not a good way to go. Neither in promoting social justice nor in promoting personal liberty.
Having been on the receiving side of overenthusiastic promoters of, in my case, feminism, I can understand what you mean.

But I have also seen, more than once, that in the same way that you put it here in joking... that if you say you prefer lemons over watermelons, you are being called a "fruitist"... people make valid and reasonable statements about social problems and potential solutions and are shouted down as "political correctness nazis and social justice warriors".

Sure, calling someone an SJW should never be considered a way of defeating an argument or disregarding a position. That just ends up being childish name-calling. I'm not suggesting that all SJWs are bad at debates, or any for that matter, just that there is a trend associated with the label that involves policing what people have to say to an obnoxious extent. Rather than tell people they can't be bigots and have their opinions openly expressed, I'd rather just listen to what they have to say, and defeat their arguments. I also don't want to be associated with groups, progressive or otherwise, that I am not actively a part of.

So you think that there should be limits? But it should be the limits that you prefer, not the limits that "they" prefer?
Do you just try to limit my right to be a jerk?

I'm referring to things like calling in fake bomb threats, or trying to get people to commit suicide. Which is considered illegal in most countries. Words can be deadly, but calling someone fat usually won't be.

 

[Colter]

It all sounds like a coalescing of like minded people around the continuation of antidisestablishmentarianism only to have the same reaction to attempts to standardize the movement for common goals. Ultra individualists naturally joining up with others....... but then remembering their ultra individualism.

 

[Dave-W]

For me, atheism is a single stance on a single issue. That's it. End of story.
As an Australian, that's all it needs to be.
I could be a humanist, a leftist, a conservative, a feminist, a socialist, a capitalist, a libertarian, an environmentalist, a progressive, a right winger or almost any other 'ist' without it having any impact on my beliefs about gods.
I have no need, or desire, to link my atheism to any other set of views.
Maybe its different in the US, where most of this seems to be sparking. There seems to be this strong link between religious views and social/economic/political views in the US that is either non-existent or tenuous in the rest of the world.

In the US the media tries to put everyone and everything into discrete pigeon holes that include any number of positions that they see as "related," or at least seem to them to occur together. Since they insist on reporting based on that model - many buy into it.

 

[Locutus]

Just as SJWs can be honest, in contrast to "try[ing] to push their political correctness on others".

People usually don't portray themselves as the bad gus. SJWs don't, Anti-SJWs don't.

They are actively opposed to free speech. They're utterly toxic.

 

[FireDragon76]

The uncritical acceptance of Marxist categories is something that bothers me. Western intellectuals don't have a healthy aversion to Marx, but they haven't lived through the horrors of the Soviet Union.

 

[fat wee robin]

The uncritical acceptance of Marxist categories is something that bothers me. Western intellectuals don't have a healthy aversion to Marx, but they haven't lived through the horrors of the Soviet Union.

And the Stasi too .