Who are your favorite current Atheists?

[Lemonvariable72]

Check his video on "teach men not to rape" and there's a part he compares preventing rape with locking your house's door. I'm not required to provide proof you can easily google since you're so familiar with Tf00t

Well I don't actually agree with the analogy I do somewhat agree with the premise. No I don't think it's the victims fault in anyway if it does happen, but ifrc the point he is making in that video is that you can't just focus all on boys and fixed the issue.
Too illustrate my point, a woman should not be able to go and get drunk enough that she is unaware of herself, take a guy a home, then lay all sorts of blame on him saying he raped her.
alternatively a man shouldn't be able to rape a girl and say "we'll she was hitting on me" in defense.

[Brian37]

Sorry to, like, get back on topic 'n stuff, but I am a huge fan of the late Carl Sagan, and of Sam Harris, and NDT. Sarah Vowell is a favorite author, who just happens to be atheist. I like Christina Rad's YouTubes, but sometimes her accent is a bit thick to understand.

Also, there was another YouTuber, a somewhat angsty young female British Columbian, that I liked, but she wasn't always atheism. She delved into feminism and other things. But I never recorded her account name, and she may have left YouTube.

I liked Carl Sagan.

But he wasn't an atheist. He was agnostic.

Sagan was simply a smart guy. Neil Degrasse Tyson also does not like calling himself "atheist'. If Sagan didn't like saying "I am an atheist" because of his rightful admission he didn't know the future, he made a mistake.

You can hold positions of the past and present while "technically" admitting you don't know the future.

I would bet my life, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, that all past and present claims of god/s are man made. I am only "technically" "agnostic" about the future.

I think Tyson avoids using "off" which is all the word "atheist" means because of the stigma others attach to it. But neither Sagan or Neil believe in a personal god, much less the gods of those violent books.

You can reject past claims, you can reject current claims, and still while being sure about the future being highly unlikely while "technically" admitting you don't "technically" know.

[Jenny A]

2. Prevention is something women should be taught just the same.

You already are and it doesn't work sweetheart

Not flashing cash and locking your doors doesn't ensure you won't be robbed either, but it minimizes the chances. Where a woman goes, how she dresses and how she behaves can either enhance or minimize the chances of rape.

This would be perfect if it wasn't for the fact that rape happens to... Just guess... Different kinds of bodies with different clothing, including burqas, niqabs and headscarves.

Yes and people with locked doors get robbed too. But I wouldn't advise anyone to leave their doors unlocked.

I'm always amused by this analogy because while flashing cash is increasing the chances, it's at least something you can know and understand, while rape comes from someone you know and trust and therefore it's not preventable.

Date rape is a whole nother ball game. I doubt dress has much to do with that, though choosing your dates careful and not getting drunk with people you don't know really well might.

That has no effect on rape. You have ugly and beautiful being raped, and even some older women as well. Clothing doesn't increase the chances - In fact, the only relevant data for being raped is meeting new men

Did you watch the video. We are talking body language here and not provocative body language, but vulnerable body language.

Do you mean the body language you use against the men you know and trust minimally? I thought it was relaxed.

Nope, body language in public. I learned that to walk boldly and carry a motorcycle helmet makes man cross the street. Appearing sure of yourself is useful for preventing both muggings and rape. It's useful date rape prevention.

I talk not as a victim but as a criminal law student who has studied facts from various crimes, including rape (I did some papers)... Clothing and body language is almost irrelevant if not completely irrelevant. But you can always prove otherwise.

The case T makes of body language is against psychopathic violent rapists, but those are serial criminals and a minority compared to the rest of the population

That is the only situation I'm addressing. Violent rape. He was not and I'm not addressing date rape in this context.

[Whateverist]

My wife. Oh, and some of you lot.

[Dystopia]

Check his video on "teach men not to rape" and there's a part he compares preventing rape with locking your house's door. I'm not required to provide proof you can easily google since you're so familiar with Tf00t

Well I don't actually agree with the analogy I do somewhat agree with the premise. No I don't think it's the victims fault in anyway if it does happen, but ifrc the point he is making in that video is that you can't just focus all on boys and fixed the issue.
Too illustrate my point, a woman should not be able to go and get drunk enough that she is unaware of herself, take a guy a home, then lay all sorts of blame on him saying he raped her.
alternatively a man shouldn't be able to rape a girl and say "we'll she was hitting on me" in defense.

Correct, but that doesn't fall on the definition of rape - I'm not talking about that. So how do you statistically propose to "prevent" rape considering that rapists usually (I think) don't self identify as such? You may not be aware but the common rapist is no different than the average male and is sometimes nice and caring

The scenario you propose is fuelled by men's rights apologists in defense of rapists who didn't realize having sex with someone who's passed out is rape.

Not flashing cash and locking your doors doesn't ensure you won't be robbed either, but it minimizes the chances. Where a woman goes, how she dresses and how she behaves can either enhance or minimize the chances of rape.

If the clothing has an effect why do you find women in ridiculously conservative clothes getting raped as well? And why does the same happen to women with burqas? And what do you mean behave? Do you mean - Not being nice to anyone because that can be interpreted as a "sexual sign"?

Citation needed Jenny.

Yes and people with locked doors get robbed too. But I wouldn't advise anyone to leave their doors unlocked.

I still need evidence that there's one ideal type of victim

Date rape is a whole nother ball game. I doubt dress has much to do with that, though choosing your dates careful and not getting drunk with people you don't know really well might.

So basically you are saying that Schrodinger's rapist is true - Literally - Because that equates not trusting any man you've just met (and most rapists are probably not showing rapist "traits", they'll be nice and "normal") and potentially almost not dating since rapists are not discernible from non rapists - What you propose here is no social life for women, because that's the only way to significantly prevent rape - And it means you may not be raped but other women will be

Did you watch the video. We are talking body language here and not provocative body language, but vulnerable body language.

Define vulnerable, because to me it may be different, and for rapists as well... In my opinion anyone who is smaller than me looks vulnerable - Conclusion, anyone is a potential rape material

Nope, body language in public. I learned that to walk boldly and carry a motorcycle helmet makes man cross the street. Appearing sure of yourself is useful for preventing both muggings and rape. It's useful date rape prevention.

Rapes on the street are not the norm - And you are correct about preventing crimes like mugging - I dress very dark at night and use a weird thug hat to scare people - But still, it's not going to be useful because the majority of rapes are not in the dark alley with a knife. Tf00t is not precise with body language, he gives no useful advice except against a certain kind of rapist that composes about 1-10% of the population

That is the only situation I'm address. Violent rape. He was not and I'm not addressing date rape in this context.

Then specify it. Tf00t's video was against the "teach men not to rape" and that phrase is used mostly against common everyday rapes and not psychopathic violent rapists - Those are the only ones you probably will not be able to teach not to rape because they lack empathy. The popular slogan talks about the majority of rapists who rape someone they know and are not psychos, they simply rationalize behaviour and think it is appropriate to rape or opportunistic at least. Can you use self-defense? Totally, yes - But to think women don't take "precautions" already is naive - Didn't your parents teach you to not accept drinks from strangers, to not walk alone at night, etc? Does it work to decrease crime? No, you may not be raped, but others will eventually will.

Your proposal is not exactly "stupid", but it's similar to thinking executing thieves will stop other thieves from stealing stuff - It's a bad solution that doesn't fix anything.

[abentwookie]

Wookie, I get what you're saying. It was my impression that they had a sort of ideological litmus test. Am I mistaken in thinking that they require members to adhere to a specific set of value claims?

Throwing people out for being disruptive is understandable. Throwing them out -- or worse, accusing them of racism or sexism etc -- will almost certainly foster groupthink.

If that's what they want, it's all good. Such an approach is nothing I'm interested in supporting.

Well, the purpose of the group was to fight against sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc... There was some disagreement about specific issues but nothing bad. Most of the problems came from the people complaining that Atheists shouldn't be involved in anything other than Atheism but there was also a lot of sexism coming from atheists, especially directed towards people like Jennifer McCreight (the founder), Greta Christina, etc... So yeah, some people were being obnoxious and needed to be removed. The people that I saw being accused of sexism and racism were BEING sexist and racist.

I think the problem is that a lot of people were talking about what happened even though they weren't actually there. Its similar to the thunderf00t incident. Some of his followers claimed he was banned just for posting an opinion that others didn't support but that isn't what happened at all. He was banned for being a belligerent tool and throwing a tantrum. Some people just don't understand the difference between acting like an ass and conveying your opinion in a mature and rational manner.

[GrandizerII]

Wookie, I get what you're saying. It was my impression that they had a sort of ideological litmus test. Am I mistaken in thinking that they require members to adhere to a specific set of value claims?

Throwing people out for being disruptive is understandable. Throwing them out -- or worse, accusing them of racism or sexism etc -- will almost certainly foster groupthink.

If that's what they want, it's all good. Such an approach is nothing I'm interested in supporting.

Well, the purpose of the group was to fight against sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc... There was some disagreement about specific issues but nothing bad. Most of the problems came from the people complaining that Atheists shouldn't be involved in anything other than Atheism but there was also a lot of sexism coming from atheists, especially directed towards people like Jennifer McCreight (the founder), Greta Christina, etc... So yeah, some people were being obnoxious and needed to be removed. The people that I saw being accused of sexism and racism were BEING sexist and racist.

I think the problem is that a lot of people were talking about what happened even though they weren't actually there. Its similar to the thunderf00t incident. Some of his followers claimed he was banned just for posting an opinion that others didn't support but that isn't what happened at all. He was banned for being a belligerent tool and throwing a tantrum. Some people just don't understand the difference between acting like an ass and conveying your opinion in a mature and rational manner.

Are you familiar with the drama that occurred between Matt Dillahunty and the Atheism+ forum? That's the only thing I can say bugged me about Atheism+ from what I've read. The overreaction was unnecessary.

[abentwookie]

Are you familiar with the drama that occurred between Matt Dillahunty and the Atheism+ forum? That's the only thing I can say bugged me about Atheism+ from what I've read. The overreaction was unnecessary.

Yes and that was a forum moderation issue that started when a mod felt that a topic was put in the wrong forum and it was blown out of proportion. Entire groups are not responsible for what some moderators on a forum do but that was something that people were trying to pin on Atheism+ as an entire group, which is basically a composition fallacy. There are issues with various moderators handling situations differently (often badly) on literally every single forum I have been on...

[Jenny A]

And what do you mean behave? Do you mean - Not being nice to anyone because that can be interpreted as a "sexual sign"?

Citation needed Jenny.

Not behaving like a victim. That means standing tall and not shrinking. It has nothing to do with sexual signaling. It has everything to do with not signaling weakness.

Yes and people with locked doors get robbed too. But I wouldn't advise anyone to leave their doors unlocked.

I still need evidence that there's one ideal type of victim

If we are not talking date rape, and I'm not, the question is not who's ideal, but who's most easily raped. That's why walking tall is helpful.

So basically you are saying that Schrodinger's rapist is true - Literally - Because that equates not trusting any man you've just met (and most rapists are probably not showing rapist "traits", they'll be nice and "normal") and potentially almost not dating since rapists are not discernible from non rapists - What you propose here is no social life for women, because that's the only way to significantly prevent rape - And it means you may not be raped but other women will be

Preventing date rape is not what I was talking about. This is a non-sequitur.

Did you watch the video. We are talking body language here and not provocative body language, but vulnerable body language.

Define vulnerable, because to me it may be different, and for rapists as well... In my opinion anyone who is smaller than me looks vulnerable - Conclusion, anyone is a potential rape material

I'm small. But I can be safer by acting bigger, whether the danger is violent rate, mugging, or a cougar. Doesn't make me invulnerable by any means, but it does make me safer. In fact, having intervened in a couple violent situations, I know that just aggressively moving forward rather than backing in response to a threat is useful.

Rapes on the street are not the norm - And you are correct about preventing crimes like mugging - I dress very dark at night and use a weird thug hat to scare people - But still, it's not going to be useful because the majority of rapes are not in the dark alley with a knife. Tf00t is not precise with body language, he gives no useful advice except against a certain kind of rapist that composes about 1-10% of the population

Violent rape happens and it's the kind of rape I am talking about. Though really, just being sure of yourself is helpful in avoiding other kinds of harassment too, including the kind of rape you are talking about. Women who appear sure of themselves are less likely to be victims in any situation.

Then specify it. Tf00t's video was against the "teach men not to rape" and that phrase is used mostly against common everyday rapes and not psychopathic violent rapists - Those are the only ones you probably will not be able to teach not to rape because they lack empathy. The popular slogan talks about the majority of rapists who rape someone they know and are not psychos, they simply rationalize behaviour and think it is appropriate to rape or opportunistic at least. Can you use self-defense? Totally, yes - But to think women don't take "precautions" already is naive - Didn't your parents teach you to not accept drinks from strangers, to not walk alone at night, etc? Does it work to decrease crime? No, you may not be raped, but others will eventually will.

First of all the psychos are out there, I met one rather more personally than I might like. Secondly, TF did not argue against teaching men not to rape. He did suggest that rather strongly, and I agree that stopping there does a disservice to women. We are not children. Paying attention to what we do matters. Not all men can be, or have been taught not to rape. Behaving as if they have is dangerous. Educate men all you like, I'm much more than good with that. But educate women too. That is my point and as I heard the video TF's.

[Vox Populi]

There are many people I could list but the one person who really opened my eye's was the movie "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It started my whole investigation and the beginning of my deprogramming of my brain. I thank him a lot for it. I have heard down the vine though that a lot of Atheist's don't like him. Could just be a rumor or something.