Creating the Target

I’ve found that my experiences of outing myself to Christians, as painful as it was a few times dealing with their isolation, isn’t as bad as a lot of gays have it.

May not like ’em sometimes but they do get my sympathy on that front ’cause I know what it’s like a little.

Semi-Related to ‘targets’: this most awesome video arrived in my YouTube feed today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYQ_jLyS_0

“I’ve just donated millions of dollars to Catholic schools.”

😛

“Religion is not harmful.”

“Prayer actually works” 😉

“Religion and science are not incompatible. Non-Overlapping Magisteria and all.”

“I’m an atheist but…”

“I love watching Fox News.”

“I’m pro-life.”

“I voted for Bush, twice.”

“I am homeschooling my children.”

“I believe in god, but I call it ____.” (nature, science, etc…)

Or if you…

Go to church, even if it’s a UU congregation.

Label and generalize any group of people.

“Hi, I’m a scientologist.”

When I first started running in Atheist circles I discovered that I have a serious attitude problem with Libertarians.
Wanting not to sound narrow minded, I refrained from bad mouthing Libertarians even though I’m sure most of them, Atheist or otherwise, voted for Dubya.

“I’m a Libertarian.”

What on earth does homeschooling have to do with being alienated from the atheist community? Talk about ironic generalizing of a group of people! I *am* homeschooling my children, I’ve done so for well over a decade. In fact, we’re a part of a secular homeschooling group predominantly comprised of atheist families. We live in a VERY religious infused part of the midwest, and like it or not-there is an inordinate amount of religious pressure in the schools, public and private.

Don’t lump homeschoolers into one group. Religious homeschoolers do not speak for me, any more than religious public schoolers speak for everyone else.

Haha Caley – I was at a CFI event and someone told me they voted for McCain because Obama was a Muslim! I guess some people don’t understand the “inquiry” part in the name.

“I raped a child.” Sounds alienating to me!

“I have diarreah”

“I honestly believe that Obama was born outside this country.”

“I’m pro-life.”

Yeah, I’ll vouch for that one.

The people who mention libertarianism seem to not know what being a libertarian means. People like Glenn Beck claim to be libertarians, but they don’t hold many of the same ideals that the libertarian party hold.

I consider myself a left-libertarian, which means I believe in the legalization of any victim-less crime, the removal of government from much of our daily lives, and the protection of life and freedom, as well as defending the U.S. Constitution.

People like Glenn Beck are NOT libertarians, despite what they claim.

Anyway, back on topic, something like, “I’m an atheist, but I think ghosts/flying saucers/psychics may be real,” would be grounds for ostracization. 😉

Palin for 2012

“George W. Bush wasn’t that bad…”

Yet Another Atheist, I just came back from the link you provided. How is abolishing social security and unemployment benefits “left”?

Thanks, Sarah, for calling out Leilani on that. I was raised a secular homeschooler, in a community where more of the homeschooled kids are atheists than the public schoolers. In the couple of times I tried public school (there is also a Catholic private school in my town, so these weren’t even the most religious kids) I was continually pressured by the people around me, mainly teachers but also the kids; everyone’s popularity depended on who they went to church with, all the choirs constantly sung religious music and when I objected nobody understood what my problem was, etc. When I was homeschooled, my community was filled with acceptance, even for the families who were not atheists but just wanted to let their kids think for themselves. I know this was a exceptional community–not as much as I used to think, though. My boyfriend from college was homeschooled for religious reasons, and still turned out atheist, despite coming from a much bigger community where almost all the other homeschoolers he knew were also deeply fundamentalist. Homeschooling, like many other life choices, is complex. It obviously didn’t help the other people my boyfriend knew, but it isn’t either a totally positive concept (despite my experience and Sarah’s) or a negative one (despite the experience of those others in my boyfriend’s community who are still trapped by illogical beliefs). It is definitely a misunderstood concept, stereotyped by almost all media (Mean Girls… good grief).

Most of the atheists here seem eager to ostracize their fellow atheists for speaking the “forbidden thoughts,” but isn’t that the thing that makes the Christians assholes, their rejection of the gays among them. I guess saying that “atheists can be assholes,” would make you such a target.

P.S. Atheists can be assholes.

jose and daniel beat me to it, speaking from experience:

Dare to say Dawkins ever acts like a pompous ass (he does), dare to say he’s ever extreme (he sometimes is), dare to say he’s flat out wrong on any issue, and it’s like criticizing the pope in a group of devout, pious Catholics.

Say there might possibly be some natural phenoma to explain what’s commonly labelled “ghosts” you’ll never draw breath to explain further that you don’t think that if there is they’re not lost, wandering souls or that all sightings claimed are legit or none can be written off as halucination. If you dare say that science hasn’t studied it enough, someone will jump down your throat claiming yes they have and point to CFI which is ridiculous since they are about as unbiased as the Institute for Creation Research.

Anarchists, even anti-capitalist anarchos, are generally more opposed to social security than Marxists. I’ve certainly seen some strident Marxist defenses of Social security. One can believe that capitalism is unworkable and even that some sort of socialist revolution is needed, while still supporting certain government activities under capitalism.

I’ve generally seen the term left-libertarian used for anti-capitalist anarchists.

How about that girl who got rejected by that atheist organization for saying she was a communist?

Atheists aren’t a group, we’re just people who lack the same thing in common. I don’t believe that there is an equivalent. Actually I don’t believe that all Christian groups would treat gay people like pariahs in this way.

“Belief without evidence is bollocks, but mythic metaphor and celebratory/reverent ritual are culturally healthy and personally fulfilling.”

I’ve noticed saying something along the lines of “I feel that, occasionally, Christopher Hitchens/PZ Meyers/[Insert Figure Here] can at times be slightly too rabid in their words or actions” tends to work pretty well.

Otherwise – what @Hoverfrog said.

Well that was an invitation for delusional people with persecution complexes and paranoia.

Rob,

You’re describing the majority of atheists, those that aren’t 100% sure that there isn’t a god. If anything it would be the other way around. A person who says they are 100% sure might get alienated by atheists for being irrational. Theists may like an irrational atheist that fits their false perceptions of atheists.

Muggle,

The scenario is usually that people flat out lie about what Dawkins said. This gets refuted by facts. The person ignores the facts, still lies about what Dawkins said, and then people think the liar is stupid or a jerk. For instance, when people claim that Dawkins recommends children being taken away by authorities if parents raise them in a religion. That’s an outrageous lie told by ignorant fools. You wouldn’t have maliciously and falsely accused Dawkins of anything like that? It’s a mistake to think that this is about claiming Dawkins is wrong, and not about people lying about someone who campaigns for secularism and rationality, trying the poison the well.

“We came from apes/monkeys”.

– Oh no, we totally didn’t! We share a common ancestor with them! (so what? we share a common ancestor with pineapples too. That’s not the point. The point is your grand-grand-…-grand-grand-parents were a pair of fuckin monkeys.)
– Well yeah we did come from apes but you shouldn’t say it because it’s strategically bad! (accurate, honest science is the strategy I like)
– We shouldn’t say it because it leads to stupid questions! (so correct the false assumption built into the stupid question and everything’ll be fine)
– People will think you mean modern apes! (so correct people who think that. Anyway, when I say “Spanish people come from Romans and Indoeuropeans” I don’t mean people living in Rome and Anatolia today)
– …and so on.

The clitoris thing? We are all female as fetuses until the hormones start their job. The male’s “nub” grows into a penis. The female’s stays small. It’s the same organ. No clitoris, no penis.

It’s interesting to see how some people answered this question from the point of view of the red dot, and some people from the point of view of the black dots. To some people the question was, “What have you said that has made you feel alienated by other atheists?” while to others it was, “What would we (atheists) alienate someone for saying?”
I think these groups may have a lot to learn from one another.

@Daniel, Caley et.al.

Reincarnation, which postulates the existence of a ‘ghost’ form, has nothing to do with either a god-person or with worshipping.

As an atheist, even if it were scientifically proved – beyond a shadow of doubt – that there was a god, creator or not, there is no way I would worship it or accept that a priest can ‘translate’ its words/orders/laws.

However, by these same standards, I am not willing to automatically believe or disbelieve people who think they may get another chance on this or another planet next time around.

(At least they are not conning you into paying for their elaborate cathedrals, mosques, temples, clothes, luxurious lifestyle, etc. Neither are they telling you that their god demands that you obey them, even to the point of allowing them to mistreat children.)

Belief in ghosts or reincarnation is more like believing in winning the lottery one day, as long as it does not interfere with your life, what is the harm. Of course, Astrology is another matter entirely 😉

How exactly am I a misogynist? I merely stated the truth. Animals don’t have a choice. In medieval or earlier times, women didn’t have a choice. Now they do. I like that they have a choice, I’m happy for them. I certainly do not hate women, as is the definition of misogyny.

I was vulgar, and I don’t apologize for it. I figured on an atheist website, people could be big boys and girls and judge the context of words rather than the words themselves. I think vulgarity is very appropriate and effective when arguing against mass popular opinion about how one should act. Its a form of rebellion.

As for rudeness, the above paragraph could come across as somewhat rude, but my original post was not rude.

Yeah, I offended Dawkins and Sagan, but who cares? I hate Sagan like the plague, and I take Dawkins with a grain of salt.

For those wondering why I hate Sagan so much, his “pale blue dot” message parallels a lot with Christianity.

In Christianity, you should feel worthless and insignificant, because the only thing that matters is holiness, and dumbass, you ain’t shit because God and Jesus and all the apostles are so much better than shitty little you.

Christianity destroys self-esteem

In Sagan’s “pale blue dot”, you should feel worthless and insignificant, because the only thing that matters is how big your stars and planets are, and dumbass, you ain’t shit because the rest of the universe is so much better than your shitty planet.

Pale blue dot thinking destroys self esteem.

As for my gross misunderstanding of evolutionary science, I passed college biology. I didn’t take it any more than absolutely necessary because I see it as a worthless thing to study, at least for the majority of people. If you enjoy it, then by all means, study it. I study history for fun, which is worthless, so I hold nothing against people who study biology.

Now, back on topic

While I was perhaps a bit out of line in my commentary on clitorises(as I found out after doing some research after my post), that was not your problem with me.

Your problem was my “gross misunderstanding of evolutionary science”.

Surely you aren’t so naive? Do you really think that people should have an intermediate knowledge of ALL subjects? That is a waste.

An accountant does not need science, history, sociology, psychology, physics etc. If he spent time studying all of these things instead of studying accounting, then he would suck as an accountant.

Instead, he should choose a profession, and FOCUS on it. He should study business mathematics and learn accounting skills. It will not help him to know why the sun burns. It may interest him, but it will not help him.

“I have a special sort of herpes which makes me turn from black to red. Don’t touch me where I’m red, you could catch it.”

Daniel,

As AxeGrrl alluded to, your comment is known as an argument from ignorance, it’s a logical fallacy that suggests that because you or anyone else can’t come up with an explanation, that another explanation should be preferred. This assumes that your failure is proof that there is no evolutionary explanation. More likely explanations for your failure are: a) You’re ignorant, b) You’re stupid.

These are relative terms of course. Even highly intelligent people haven’t been able to create evolutionary models that explain certain anatomy that has subsequently been explained by more intelligent people, or people who had more knowledge. When natural selection was first proposed, explanations were few, genetics didn’t exist, and the vast majority of fossils and living species had not been documented, named, or discovered. The number of evolutionary models for explaining species and anatomical features has grown tremendously decade upon decade creating a mountain of positive evidence for evolution by natural selection. It makes no sense judging evolution by what we haven’t explained, because geographically, anatomically, genetically, and experimentally the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I doubt you can name as many so-called “problems” with evolutionary theory as an evolutionary biologist can name solutions to previously unexplained phenomena.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the clitoris is an organ only involved in pleasure, and has no other purpose. That’s a tremendous leap, again, perhaps you’re just too stupid and too ignorant to understand the purpose of the clitoris. Perhaps you haven’t even studied it in detail or searched the literature on the subject. When stimulated the clitoris can cause sexual arousal, the external genitalia become engorged, the top of the vagina expands, the vagina gets lubricated, possibly having a function in facilitating conception. As Ursulamajor suggested, perhaps the clitoris is a remnant from how genitalia develop embryonically, as males have undeveloped “breasts” and can sometimes lactate.

It has been suggested that the female orgasm is related to reproductive success. In Denmark, farmers are encouraged to “stimulate” pigs before they inseminate the semen, as can be seen in Mary Roach’s TEDTalk.

We’re still talking about clitorises? I’ve already conceded that I was talking out of my ass(out of ignorance and not stupidity) about clitorises. That doesn’t change the fact that I only accept evolution; I don’t like it one bit. Its a Goddamned audacious claim about how we got there. Yeah, its not as audacious as creationism, but its still a stretch. I don’t see how someone can call themselves a skeptic and then swallow the idea that we evolved from bacteria that was around 4.4 billion(or 25,000 with punctuated equilibrium) years ago.

Forgive me if I don’t immediately suck its cock.

Still, I’ve never much cared about the how we got here, I didn’t give a shit as a Christian, and I don’t give a shit as an atheist.

My primary concern is this:That atheists miss religion. I doubt many of us were raised as atheists, or else we wouldn’t be reading atheist blogs and commenting.

The vast majority of us have either been Christians, or believed in God, or been members of another religion at one stage or another of our life.

I think a lot of atheists, myself included, miss religion and a god. The difference is that I’ve learned to accept it, while most have not.

Whenever an eloquent atheist comes along, people jump on it. They catch every word from his(or her) lips to theirs, like honey. They find a human god to replace their old one.

They try to organize atheism and agree on certain morals and certain beliefs. They try to organize atheism and turn it into a religion, because they miss their old religion, but know that its not real.

That’s what I think.

Daniel,

As Insignificant Speck commented, we’re fine if you don’t think evolutionary biology is relevant to your life. If you want to actually say anything about it, it’s not worthless to first understand it, something you clearly do not do. You struggle with the fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor? That’s not really an argument against evolution, you’re repeatedly confirming you’re too stupid or too ignorant to imagine something happening. How does a skeptic swallow something so counter-intuitive as evolution? Fucking evidence! I’ve already gone through the main types of evidence that the mountain of evidence for evolution consists. That same evidence that supports evolution happens, also supports common descent. How is it a fucking stretch? Any ignorant person can look at something with no knowledge, intellect, or understanding and say it’s audacious, a stretch, hard to swallow. It’s irrelevant, you’re only describing your emotional reaction to it.

What you said is actually clearly the opposite of what Sagan was expressing, and it doesn’t take great intelligence or reading ability to understand. I’m not quite sure what you would prefer Sagan to say, that the Earth is eternal, large, central, privileged, and made just for us? He says that humans are important, and that the Earth should be preserved. Your explanation is that he directly contradicts himself at the beginning and end, and that the middle says something entirely different than what it seems? That’s a bit of a stretch. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re in denial, delusional.

“I’m not sure I think global warming is real, or if it is real, that humans are a significant cause of it.”

AJ, you make my point. I’ve gotten that reaction for quoting Dawkins directly with a link to his website and then daring to disagree with his opinion.

Leilani Says:

I wasn’t attacking you, I was giving an example based on my own experience… gosh.

In a world recovering from mass religion if you dont want to become the red dot ,one must remember try not to ever have any personal opinion.Its a big no no.Even if you be PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins or anyone else.

Group think rules.Folks find it hard to learn to allow personal opinion.And different points of view.

Which IMHO is partly why opressive tyrants like Stalin evolve.Religion and tradition becomes so deeply ingrained into society ,folks even feel uncomfortable if somebody dares think different.

Ive seen atheists show great religious concern about how another atheist wrote their book ,religious concern that this atheist might be wrong about some things, religious concern that this atheist might be bad for the atheist group image,almost as if they expect atheism to just be another faith group of clones.

Hemant Mehta said

What does someone have to say to become the red dot in the atheist world?

Hemant Mehta, one is in danger of becoming the red dot if they. Dare to be a Daniel.Dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm. Dare to make it known.

IMHO.

AJ,

Again, you remind me of Christians. When confronted with the passages about slavery or the “fact” that God was just fucking with Abraham when he told him to kill his son, in ADDITION to the “fact” that God was just fucking with Job when he KILLED HIS WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY AND TOOK AWAY HIS HOUSE AND GAVE HIM A HORRIBLE DISEASE. To top it off, Satan, who is pretty much responsible for every bad thing, who is responsible for all the horrible corrupt shit that happens, and is responsible(according to Christians) for people deconverting to atheism(and thus making them be tortured for E-FUCKING-TERNITY). The reason Satan is still around? Character development. I wonder how many single moms can get off on that same excuse. Oh, the reason I didn’t dump my boyfriend was because it was good character development for my kids. Yeah, all the times he kicked them and punched them and raped them or made them BURN ALIVE FOREVER, it was character development.

They kind of give a bullshit explanation about why God did that. Or say that its just faith and you trust that God had a reason you just don’t know it. A cop out basically.

They immediately switch over to the flowery parts of the bible. “Love your Neighbor as yourself” “Judge not lest ye not be judged” “For God so loved the world….)

Something which you have done, AJ, you want me to look at something Carl Sagan wrote which is undoubtedly flowery and will make me feel good. So?

Its like an abused woman saying, “Oh no officer! Don’t arrest him! He didn’t mean to hit me! He said he was sorry and that he loved me and wants to spend the rest of his life together with me! We’re gonna have us some babies officer! We gonna have us a family!”

I posted on NP’s site my thoughts about the picture. Basically explaining how difficult it was to be a Christian and at the same time be bisexual and have gender dissonance. The fear of becoming a target was so strong that I didn’t want to even attempt to express the fact that I thought that I liked men (REALLY liked them, I had a major romantic crush on a college mate of mine) and also the fact I don’t feel right as who I am.

I’m finding a lot more support in the atheist group of people than I think I would in Christian – or if I did receive support it would be more ‘you’re just delusional’ kind of support (like my brother told me a few days ago…)

Perhaps switching wasn’t the right word. I pointed out something that’s fucked up about Sagan, and you show me something he said that’s nice and flowery, just like a Christian witnessing.

Of course, it will let you enjoy yourself, and that is something I value is well. As I said before, I study history recreationally. I’ve never paid for a class, but its something I’ve considered, and I still consider. At the very least, a “fun” class will help the brain to associate the classroom with positive emotions, which can help if one is taking a difficult or stressful class.

Perhaps it was foolish to dismiss general educations altogether. If someone isn’t settled on a profession, they would benefit from a general college education, to see what they enjoy and/or excel in.

I’m a different kind of person. I spent hundreds of hours after I turned 16 researching careers, because I wanted to focus the rest of my life on it. That’s just the way I am.

simple and elegant, this illustration explains why many are so afraid to stand up for who they are and how they feel. its amazing how few words are needed to convey such a complex feeling.

I did say some things in an atheist group that seemed to cause kneejerk reactions.
The first was “There may be Sasquatches”
The second was “some aspects of alternative medicine come from astute observers of people and contain truth that science hasn’t yet established”.
And that I thought it a good idea to investigate whether people having near death experiences can see pictures facing the ceiling, when they’re up there. An experiment that someone is actually doing.
There were dogmatic “skeptics” there, and it felt strange after that to go to the library and find it more a home of open-mindedness.