Atheists and White Supremacists

[hooplala]

...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.

And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.

If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.

I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet.  I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.

I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.

Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.

Hmmm so it's the "enlighten through alienation" approach? Not sure that works too well. I feel like Martin Luther King Jr. was a lot more effective than the Black Panthers. It seems, actually, as if a lot of other groups have succeeded in making themselves visible without engaging in the kind of insecure superiority-games and tribal conflict-mongering I'm criticizing. Further, there is the peculiarity of building one's identity around membership in a group that is unified in the non-belief in something that doesn't exist. Identifying as Atheist strikes me as reeking of insecurity.

Why would I use a different label than the one the group I am discussing is claiming for themselves?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.

And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.

If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.

I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet.  I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.

I didn't say "assholes".

[Kai]

Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.

What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.

Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.

And every Muslim is an extremist.

Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?

A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads, is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.

The ones who choose the capital-A label seem to be forming a consensus and group identity, unlike people who simply hold an atheistic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's a group identity that I find extremely alienating and have little respect for.

Not all of them have this problem. PZ Myers's crew are pretty awesome. Take something he wrote today on the aftermath of a well known science blogger being accused of assault:

I contrast [the treatment of this event] with the atheist community. We also have some amazingly good people — as I travel around, I run into them all the time, at all levels of organization, and all doing good work — but we also have a substantial number of amazingly awful people...and as it turns out, it doesn't take many sexist jerks clawing at the structure of your organization to distract and disrupt and impede progress. We have enough atheist asshats to provide shelter and support to exploiters — and too many of us are willing to overlook the content of our leaders' characters, as long as they are willing to say the right words about the sacred atheist cause.

I've been astounded at how many people demand that we plaster over an atheist's human flaws simply because, well, he's The Man. We've been building up a body of revered saints, rather than recognizing that every one of us is human and needs to be held accountable. Face reality: if Bora had chosen to be a leader of the atheist community, rather than the online science community, right now there would be a huge battle going on, with loud voices shouting that "He only talked to these women; aren't they strong enough to resist?" And the women who spoke out would be flooded with death threats and rape threats, and would be endlessly lampooned on our little hate nests scattered about the internet. Youtube would be full of videos expressing outrage that a Good Man should have been chastised by the Shrill Harpies of Feminism.

In other words, broad brush strokes. Myers is about as capital-A Atheist as possible, yet he is neither sexist nor racist.

[hooplala]

...basically at the heart of it, they're the same thing. Insecure people looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel superior to another group through no doing of their own.

And now you get to feel superior to them! Yay, stupidity is fun.

If you think I started this thread to feel superior, I will make a mental note of what you think of me and move on.

I don't actually think that of you, or didn't until this thread... now I'm starting to wonder, but haven't made up my mind yet.  I do, however, fail to see how you lumping all Atheists together as assholes and insecure is somehow different from how you view them.

I didn't say "assholes".

Not the point.

[hooplala]

Even if shitneck Atheist Douchebags are the majority, it's not right to lump all atheists in with them. Atheism has a definition that has nothing to do with being a shitneck, and if some of them suck it's because they'd be bad people no matter what uniform they put on in the morning.

I'm not lumping in all atheists, as in people with an atheistic worldview, with Atheists.

Then maybe you might want a better label for the subset of atheists you don't like. Personally, I think the ones being jerks are serving an important -- if annoying -- purpose, by forcing people to recognize the fact that not everyone is part of the dominant religion. You don't get very far in those types of fights by being nice and quiet.

Hmmm so it's the "enlighten through alienation" approach? Not sure that works too well. I feel like Martin Luther King Jr. was a lot more effective than the Black Panthers. It seems, actually, as if a lot of other groups have succeeded in making themselves visible without engaging in the kind of insecure superiority-games and tribal conflict-mongering I'm criticizing. Further, there is the peculiarity of building one's identity around membership in a group that is unified in the non-belief in something that doesn't exist. Identifying as Atheist strikes me as reeking of insecurity.

Why would I use a different label than the one the group I am discussing is claiming for themselves?

People psychologically define themselves in many different ways, sometimes by what they like and agree with, and sometimes by what they don't like and agree with.  One of the most empowering (for lack of a better word) parts of human existence can be the drawing of the line, the marking of the boundary of your own ideas and ideals.  I don't see how using the lack of belief in the prevailing zeitgeist is in any way unusual.

Yes, Nigel, there are asshole atheists*.  There are asshole devotees to Mother Theresa.  There are assholes everywhere, why would a group like atheists be exempt from that?


*Asshole, here, is my word for what I deem to be the individuals you are referring to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And that was in that thread, after I lost my shit.

Hang on, while I dig up one of the earlier ones.

That's the one I remember reading, not denying that I may have missed others. Demo Squid also spoke up at length, I'm not sure if I missed anyone else as I was trying to scroll back to the first post in the argument.

The point is the way I assume things work around here is when people are wrong it's our job to call them on their bullshit, whether it's you or Nigel or P3nt or Twid or RHWN. P3nt got chewed out for being wrong, Nigel is getting chewed out for being wrong. I'm sure I'm gonna be a moron soon and need some medicine too. It seems like the system is currently functional. I know there is the problem that you're perceived as being tough enough to deal with this shit on your own, so when you start in on someone a lot of times people will shrug and go "Roger's got it" instead of jumping in themselves, but I don't see how that should translate to "not enough people defended Roger, so no one should call Nigel out this time around."

I'm not wrong though. Try it out and see for yourself.

I'm sick and kinda slow today, could you clarify "try it out"?

Re-read the OP, with your critical thinking hat on. If you're sick and kind of slow today, save it for later. Maybe sit on it for a while. We are talking about people who want to be part of a group that is expressly defined as not being something else. "White" isn't really an ethnic or cultural category, it's just "not-nonwhite". "Atheist" is likewise a non-descriptor, an absence of an attribute. What kind of people band together and identify as "not-that"?

"I choose to identify myself according to what I'm not" is a backlash, a reaction to "that". It's a fear-based response born out of insecurity. While the right NOT to believe is important, when people are free not to believe and use that freedom to build tribal mythologies and integral belief systems that are centered around their superiority -- racial, ethnic, or intellectual -- they have reached the end of thinking behavior and entered the territory of reflexive behavior.

Memes such as those found here: http://funnyatheist.tumblr.com/ are examples of such a mythology and integral belief system that is being built into the community that calls itself Atheism. Whatever rejection there is of this community by those who consider themselves atheistic, if such rejection exists (and I see precious little evidence of it) is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent this Atheist identity from overwhelmingly being the prevalent representation of what an atheist is, which is one of the reasons, as I wrote in that other thread, that I decline to describe myself as an atheist, even if my perspective might best be described as atheistic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IT MIGHT HELP IF YOU IMAGINE ME SPEAKING AS A NURTURING FAT 42-YEAR-OLD MOM and not as whatever Mean Mr. Nigel character you all have in your heads.

[Faust]

Your cake says 49...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Your cake says 49...

I know, it was the best image I could find for "Middle aged mom with cake". I seriously thought Google would have more for me, there.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Although, this one is really pretty good too:

[Faust]

I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.

I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"

[Faust]

I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.

I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"

That makes much more sense. I suppose one isn't thinking practically if they lie about their age.
Sorry I don't know where I am going with this or what it has to do with the topic of atheism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I see. I thought it was one of those things where moms stay 39 for five or six years after the fact.

I've always thought that sounded like a bad idea; it's a much better move to tack on an extra five or six years, so that when you tell someone you're 47 they're like "HOLY SHIT you look AMAZING!"

That makes much more sense. I suppose one isn't thinking practically if they lie about their age.
Sorry I don't know where I am going with this or what it has to do with the topic of atheism.

No worries, the conversation seems to have reached the "stalled out" point.