[ 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]

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.)