[ SECRET POST #3065 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3065 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The Witcher 3]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Shakin Stevens]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Godfather II]


__________________________________________________



05.
[A Redtail's Dream]


__________________________________________________



06.
[David Lynch & David Cronenberg]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Laurell K. Hamilton]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Big Bang Theory]


__________________________________________________



09.
(Richard Dawkins)


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sabotabby]

That's why I specified New Atheism, which is an organized—and douchey—movement. They call themselves that, not me. I wouldn't call them atheists at all, personally.

[dethtoll]

How is New Atheism douchey? Aside from the behavior and attitudes of individual people who might ascribe to that label, which, admittedly, is unfortunately common with a lot of (primarily male) atheists and skeptics, I don't see the problem with criticism of religion and magical thinking, which is what New Atheism is about.

[(Anonymous)]

...you do get that you're pretty much proving sabotabby's point, yes?

[dethtoll]

I believe that you feel that way.

[sabotabby]

Its main spokespeople are white male douchebags.

I have no problem with criticism of religion, but:

1) I do have a problem with evangelicalism, and trying to force one's atheist beliefs on others is just as bad as trying to force one's religious beliefs on others.

2) The criticism is not of all religion equally. Its most scathing criticisms are reserved for Islam, with a cover of "Islam is a religion not a race," which is a cowardly evasion of real-world politics.

3) The supposed majority of the movement has not told Dawkins, Harris, et al. to STFU with the rapey misogyny.

If it's just about critique of religion and magical thinking, old-fashioned small-a, non-new atheism does perfectly well at that.

[dethtoll]

Okay then!

[(Anonymous)]

DA
Inability to debate point detected.

[dethtoll]

No, I just didn't care to continue the discussion, and by the looks of the thread elsewhere it was a wise choice.

[(Anonymous)]

2 & 3 are literally the exact opposites of each other. You don't get to whine about the movement self policing about rapey misogyny and then cry that they're being too mean to poor Islam.

[sabotabby]

No.

[(Anonymous)]

Then don't tell lies and pretend you're anti rape when it suits you and not when it's muh Islam dindunuffins.

[(Anonymous)]

Excellent retort.

[sabotabby]

That's all it was worthy of. *shrug*

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Or you're just willing to excuse culturally-ingrained rape and misogyny because you're terrified of being labeled a racist.

Surprise, you're still a racist. And a rape apologist to boot. Your mother must be so proud.

(frozen comment)

[sabotabby]

Yeah, sorry, I'm not the rape apologist here. That'd be your hero, who only cares about rape if it happens in a country that he can armchair-general dropping a bomb on and otherwise excuses it as no biggie if done by a white male atheist.

If you think Islam's the only belief system with misogyny problems, allow me to introduce you to the entirety of Western civilization. Until then, simmer down, the adults are talking.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

No. Fuck you. I don't like Dawkins any more than you do, so please don't fucking insult me, and especially don't pretend that rape and misogyny aren't predominant in the Muslim world, far more than they are here in the West.

Criticism of Islam is more important than criticism of Christianity simply because the situation for women in the middle east is so much worse.

You suck at this.

(frozen comment)

[sabotabby]

Don't pretend that arguing anonymously on the internet is doing fuck all to help women in the Middle East. Or that any of the douchebag white Christian men in the New Atheism movement give a shit about women anywhere. Clean up your own house first.

[caerbannog]

I'm not sure I follow your last line. They're still atheists. Supposedly douchebag dickhead atheists but they are still "non believers"

[sabotabby]

They're non-believers, but they're evangelical about that non-belief, which leads me to believe that they are not as confident about their atheism as they might be. It's like a guy who exclaims loudly and at random that the sun will rise, and you're a fool for not declaring it along with him—makes me wonder if he might have his doubts.

[(Anonymous)]

hi

i can't speak for individual people in the movement but you are wrong about new atheism and you're confusing atheism with anti-theism which are two different things

your argument is like saying catholics are less confident in their faith because their belief system is heavily ritualized and dogmatic and they're evangelical, which makes no sense

have a nice day. or don't, whichever you prefer. <3

[sabotabby]

Maybe.

But like I said in another thread, I was raised atheist. It is a given; no one has offered me a whit of proof that gods are a thing, so I'm pretty confident in this. I don't feel the need to convince other people to believe what I do, because to me it's self-evident and if they are just quietly believing in a thing, that's their business.

Where religion becomes a harmful social force is when it gets dogmatic and institutionalized and politicized. That's where it affects other people's lives, and where I have an objection.

As far as I can tell, the New Atheist movement is doing its best to be as dogmatic and institutional and political as possible. While I can understand the urge to a point—someone is being wrong on the internet, etc.—it's exactly what deserves critiquing about religion. That's why I keep calling them Christian evangelicals—the content differs, but the form is the same.

Having had a lot of conversations with highly religious people across a variety of demographics and faiths, I would say that actually yes, in most cases the more dogmatic, the less confident they are in their own beliefs. Dogmatism is a refuge from having to confront complexity. I see a similar pattern in the official mouthpieces of New Atheism (with the exception of PZ Myers)—the very same rigidity, the need to have everyone believe what you believe, the unwillingness to engage in critiques (the time from me making my first comment in the thread to getting my first rape threat in the thread was about an hour).

And no, probably Not All Atheists, but a large percentage of the leading voices and a vocal majority of people online, and I don't see many leading lights (again, with the exception of Myers who called out Dawkins on his misogyny) standing up against the movement's flaws.

[caerbannog]

I took it more that they're loud because they're surrounded by religion and advertisements that are just "atheists exist" get vandalised and general frustration. Sure a lot of the loud ones are dicks (it sounds like? Idk anything about new atheists t movement) and I'm sure there's some agnostics in there but it just sounds like frustrated people to me

To go with your analogy, sure they're announcing the sun will rise every now and then, but only because everyone around them is insisting it won't and never will and it's actually Pluto rising not the sun.

[sabotabby]

I'd feel way more sympathetic if/when they get frustrated because they're in places where religion affects them. But it seems to be people who haven't grown up with religion oppressing them in any tangible way but just want to shout very loudly about a thing.

[caerbannog]

I wouldn't say atheists are oppressed (in America) but I'd argue there's passive discrimination ranging to active discrimination depending on their location (from what I've heard/read. Never been to America myself, doubt as a tourist I'd have much time to pay attention).

Which can get frustrating the more you notice. Then add in groups of ?support or feedback? And you end up with communities like the child free ones - loud and aggressive.

[sabotabby]

Oh, I get it. I've even experienced it personally and still experience it pretty regularly in a developed, supposedly secular country. It's just not, say, equivalent to being racialized, or female, or trans, or really any oppressed group, and there's a strong correlation between the loudest atheists and the most otherwise privileged people.

As a lady atheist, I very much feel marginalized within any sort of atheist movement, and in terms of my own personal safety—given that I can't even critique Richard Dawkins in a fannish forum without a stranger resorting to rape threats against me—would never feel safe walking into any organized atheist space. (Unless, of course, atheism was not the primary axis of identity; a gathering of communists or anarchists can be pretty much assumed to be atheists, but that is very much secondary and they would likely also have a race/class/gender/sexuality critique that much more resembles my own.)