An Indictment Of Atheists

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The opposite of belief is doubt, not lack of belief. To lack belief would be something more like ignorance.

So, practical example, to lack belief in unicorns is to be ignorant of the existence of unicorns?

Please note the question mark at the end.

But unicorns do exist. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to talk about them.

Now that doesn't mean that unicorns exist as real, tangible creatures in the sense that my cats exist. But, when you use the word unicorn, I immediately get a sense of the kind of creature you are talking about.



It looks a bit like this.

And for someone all into reality, you more or less wallpaper your avatar and style yourself after something else we have to more or less have only belief in - a gryphon - which is no less real than the unicorn and exists in the very same manner.

a reply to: ketsuko

Remove the horn and that looks just like my horse Rodney.

He is beautiful!!!

Born a dark bay, then became more mottled/grey, and then wound up white. Half Arabian (national champ sire), and half Quarab (half Quarterhorse half Arab mare). She was pregnant when I bought her out of a six by nine foot 'pen.' (And she'd been in there so long her hooves were eight inches wide - that's how long since they'd been trimmed!)

I bought her, and took her home...and nurtured and fed her and had her hooves trimmed....I 'spoke' to her baby through her abdomen, and was there when he literally fell out of her ......
I caught him on the way down.

Rodney. I miss him still.



This is him with his paddock-mate at my sister-in-law's house.

originally posted by: ketsuko
This should not be a shocking piece to anyone familiar with certain brands of feminist thought. It was only a matter of time, really.

I'd have to say that (thankfully) I'm not very familiar with that brand of feminism. I know they exist, but I just haven't given them much thought, other than that they give 'equalists' (actual feminists) a very bad name. To be honest, they seem very angry and unhappy with themselves and their lives and are looking to blame someone and men are the easiest target.

Like Klass said, there are misogynists in every group, including atheists. And clearly, there are misandrists in every group, including feminists.

There is a section of fundamental atheists who are as she describes, no doubt
I don't think she is saying all atheists are the same

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
She seems to have bought into the same mythology so many others have. That atheists have a "bible", a code we live by. That we are a cohesive group with a grand agenda, and are conspiring to rule the world with a "rod of iron". When in reality, the only thing that connects us is what we lack.

(I think) Many people seem to need to be in a cohesive group (with rules and dogma) or they don't feel like they "belong" in society. Whether it's a religion, a fraternity or a political party, people want to identify with a group who shares their outlook on life and has a name. Usually, the people in those groups have many things in common, but atheists only have that one thing. This is why I understand those who don't like the term atheist. It makes me part of a group, but I'm aware of only very few other members and we don't have meetings or anything. LOL!

originally posted by: Raggedyman
There is a section of fundamental atheists who are as she describes, no doubt
I don't think she is saying all atheists are the same

Not so sure about that. She seems hell bent that atheists, collectively or individually, approve of and/or support a misogynist power base, either by their action or inaction. There isn't much of a way to win with her, unless you're an anti-theist/deist.

There are two things on the internet that over the past year or so I have found indispensable as a comedy source. Young Earth Creationists and these extreme feminists.

Woah,woah,woah!

Back up a bit here. Are they/she saying they took Atheism which is a lack of belief in a god and turned it into an organised movement and by virtue of that turned it into a belief system? WTF is this nonsense? Whatever!! I'm an Atheist and all that means is I don't believe in a god end of story. No need to be part of a movement, or go to Atheist church, or whatever ridiculous excuse you need to confirm you belief or lack thereof. That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

And to be clear I believe that women are equals and deserving of as much respect as anybody else (at least in a general sense as opposed to individually). Although I may make an exception for the dingbat in the OP if I understand what she's attempting to express although her thought processes are seriously convoluted in my eyes.

Then again she may be correct as I have no concept of what an Atheist Movement is or could be or why male members would act in such a reprehensible way.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

They do give feminists a bad name just like the ones who persist in thinking there are no differences between the genders, that the only differences between little boys and little girls are the solely fault of parenting with absolutely no nature involved.

I think this particular example, like a lot of others, has an overly simplistic view of the world. Things just aren't as easy as she wants to make them.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Humans are social creatures and like social creatures, we feel most comfortable in a group.

Look around at other group creatures and you'll see that group creatures feel best when the group is homogenous and has a certain degree of conformity. Why do you think the so-called culture wars are so heated?

It is no longer the culture to do your own thing, but to break down into loud, noisy tribes each vying to force their world-view on everyone else or the larger world around them.

It's very hard to become comfortable inside yourself, much easier to shape everyone around you to fit.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Basically.

So, a corollary of your statement is that ignorance of the non-existent is a good thing, i.e. something akin to, oh I don't know ... sanity? Said another way, ignorance is really knowledge of the fact that the imaginary is not actually real?

Ah. What a clever insight!

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The opposite of belief is doubt, not lack of belief. To lack belief would be something more like ignorance.

So, practical example, to lack belief in unicorns is to be ignorant of the existence of unicorns?

Please note the question mark at the end.

But unicorns do exist. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to talk about them.

Now that doesn't mean that unicorns exist as real, tangible creatures in the sense that my cats exist. But, when you use the word unicorn, I immediately get a sense of the kind of creature you are talking about.

It looks a bit like this.

And for someone all into reality, you more or less wallpaper your avatar and style yourself after something else we have to more or less have only belief in - a gryphon - which is no less real than the unicorn and exists in the very same manner.

Your definition of "exists" is as broad as your definition of "belief."

Not surprising. If you want to consider that gods only "exist" in the imagination, that's an excellent point.

Said another way, if your point is to say that God is not real, I can't disagree with you.

/shrug

originally posted by: Raggedyman
There is a section of fundamental atheists who are as she describes, no doubt
I don't think she is saying all atheists are the same

There are also sections of christians, muslims, budhists, communists, whites, blacks, other women, red heads, blondes, and any other group of people you might imagine. Misogyny has nothing to do with atheism, so why is this an atheism problem, and not just simply a misogyny problem?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The opposite of belief is doubt, not lack of belief. To lack belief would be something more like ignorance.

So, practical example, to lack belief in unicorns is to be ignorant of the existence of unicorns?

Please note the question mark at the end.

But unicorns do exist. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to talk about them.

Now that doesn't mean that unicorns exist as real, tangible creatures in the sense that my cats exist. But, when you use the word unicorn, I immediately get a sense of the kind of creature you are talking about.

It looks a bit like this.

And for someone all into reality, you more or less wallpaper your avatar and style yourself after something else we have to more or less have only belief in - a gryphon - which is no less real than the unicorn and exists in the very same manner.

Stories of unicorns have been around for a long time. That does not mean that unicorns exist. I'm sure you understand this point, but this seems to be the typical twist of logic that can be expected from you.

Nobody denies that stories of gods exist, so..... What was the point of your post?

There are blatant cases of misogyny in our culture.

There are male atheists who are misogynists.

There are male theists who are misogynists.

Insert any socio-cultural category in place of "male" and the statements are still likely true.

As usual with extremists, the OP's quote is from a person who sees ALL males as misogynists.

Extremists deal in absolutes (mostly.)

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Actually she's partially right. In the atheism sub reddit there are reports of female atheists being harassed by many of their fellow male atheists.

That in no way shape or form makes atheism a male thing nor does it make it an institution.

An atheist is simply one who lacks belief in gods or deities. From there, the individual can have various different beliefs. They don't have to benefit from "women oppressing power structures" whatever that means. It sounds like the blogger is suggesting that being anti-theist somehow makes her not an atheist and makes her an active force for positive change in the community.

Just because I don't go up to their church and protest them and make noise, doesn't mean I don't care about people. I do care about people. I believe in live and let live provided you do not harm others or infringe on their rights. If they want to believe that men are superior, then go for it. I will just have no part of it. If the church's power structure is dominated by men, and you are a woman that chooses to follow it, then shame on you, but that is your decision to make. I left the church years ago, and the inequality of women is just one of the reasons.

If they are going to change, it's going to happen from within the organization, not because a bunch of anti-theists are telling them they are wrong. You can't force change on them from the outside, just like you don't want them to try to force their views on you. The best way to get them to change is to stop supporting them.

But how exactly do atheists benefit from the church's male power structure? I'm still missing that one.

I think the writer of the blog got trolled on the internet due to her extreme feminism and is blaming atheism for it.

a reply to: Barcs



Bravo!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Actually she's partially right. In the atheism sub reddit there are reports of female atheists being harassed by many of their fellow male atheists.

If the church's power structure is dominated by men, and you are a woman that chooses to follow it, then shame on you, but that is your decision to make.

YES! YES! YES!

If a woman wants to be treated equal by a man, it is her responsibility to have behavior that fits.

You can't say treat me equal, then "act like a woman".

Men do not want drama. Men do not want complaining. Men do not want excess words.

When a man is ready to walk out the door, he walks out the door. Be ready, or get left behind.

I'm not talking about equal rights. That's something else.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

Stories of unicorns have been around for a long time. That does not mean that unicorns exist. I'm sure you understand this point, but this seems to be the typical twist of logic that can be expected from you.

Nobody denies that stories of gods exist, so..... What was the point of your post?

Your explanation as an evolutionist is a little hard to understand .
Surely evolution produced a one horned animal (maybe, maybe not a horse)
Can you show me evidence there were never any one horned animals

It doesnt have to be a horse

Uni corn just means one horn (Latin unus 'one' and cornus 'horn')

The Indian Rhinoceros may not seem as enchanting as a unicorn, but they do have a single, centered facial horn.www.globalanimal.org...

a reply to: Raggedyman

In the stories, a unicorn is a magical horse with a single horn. If you want to change that definition, to include rhinoceros or a mutant deer, then you will again be twisting logic. Which is what i would expect from you. Can you get back on the page please?

Definitions are important. They are how we define things. The details are important. When you arbitrarily start changing them to include other things that already have words to describe them, you are being disingenuous at the least, and dishonest at best.