What I find disturbing is that some of these messages were not anonymous at all!

Oh my. That is very disturbing People need to grow up.

Mister Agenda : Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I shall reply starting from the end if that's ok.

(December 17, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 17, 2014 at 9:45 am)SoFarEast Wrote: And I'm not saying an all male leadership implies misogyny. I went to a few atheist conventions where the women speakers were not taken seriously, not a bit. Isn't this sexist?

It IS sexist. You went to the convention you're speaking of and I didn't. What did you do about it? Even if you just complained to the organizers, that would be something. Approaching one of the speakers who wasn't taken seriously to reassure her that some people at least took her seriously and asking for her input on how the situation could be improved and taking that feedback to someone with influence over how things are done at that convention would be another.

---

(December 17, 2014 at 9:48 am)SoFarEast Wrote: I hope that can explain my skewed opinion. As such a lot of people here look up to Dawkins and Harris, and I hoped they'd set a better example.

A lot of people here? I'm not so sure that's true. Maybe you could do a poll.

I did talk to the speaker and by here I meant where I live. But this is problem, none of this has anything to do with what I said.

Firstly, I should have refrained from stating where I'm from, or from giving examples of assholes I've encountered. And secondly, I'm not asking for help on what to do about people online or at these conventions.

Also I don't know why people need a context to my argument, or keep asking me "What I want" or "What I did". When arguing with theists it seems sufficient to make fairly abstract arguments like paradoxes.

Considering how prone statements are to misinterpretation, I'll try to be exact.

- Atheists contend : There are no valid reasons to believe in god. Theism is irrational. A rational person must identify as an atheist.
- Given atheism is only about disbelief, each atheist identifies or seeks to identify with something else.
- There are good reasons to be humanist. Alternately, a society that evolves with humanist principles is superior to a society where everyone acts according to a self defined morality. A rational person must identify as a humanist.
- An atheist therefore must also identify as a humanist.

Here's what I ask, do you agree with the third point?

---

(December 18, 2014 at 5:56 am)robvalue Wrote: But on reflection I don't think this is in any way to do with atheism, just to do with dickheads, some of which happen to be atheist.

And why do you have to point this out? I thought we were past that.

---

(December 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Cato Wrote: If your understanding of the source of misogyny was as complete as you claim, then why did you ask "Or what else explains this?" in your opening post? Your admirable crusade against misogyny is noble; however, your tactics are quixotic at best.

I understand why we have misogyny in my region. I wanted to address why it persisted in atheists, even though they express a repulsion to the same. That's why "What else explains this?". My reason for doing so was hoping to establish that the identification with pure atheism is inadequate for a person and they end up looking elsewhere, most often closer to home.

(December 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Cato Wrote: You should probably stay away from anti-misogyny recruitment drives if your method consists of finding a group of people you think should/would support your cause and proceed to immediately implicate them in misogynistic complicity based on their one shared characteristic. This is more confounding if I'm generous enough to believe you know the source of misogyny; evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't remember seeking support. Thanks anyway.

(December 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Cato Wrote: If your aim is to truly call attention to, raise awareness of, and participate in the creation of solutions to misogyny, why did you choose to rail against anonymous online opinions and conference bad behavior rather than soliciting ideas about the well documented severe manifestations found in India and elsewhere? A little off the mark in my opinion. It's hard for me to understand your purpose with all of this knowing the state of affairs where you are.

I don't get why you need to see the purpose of my posting here.

(December 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Cato Wrote: It's as if you are attempting to extract a speck of fly shit from a boxcar of ground pepper while the train is coming off the tracks.

Whatever man. Stay happy.

(December 18, 2014 at 7:07 am)robvalue Wrote: Oh my. That is very disturbing People need to grow up.

They need to be sued.

---

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: I did talk to the speaker and by here I meant where I live. But this is problem, none of this has anything to do with what I said.

Good on you for the former, you did what you could. Thanks for clarfying on the latter.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Firstly, I should have refrained from stating where I'm from, or from giving examples of assholes I've encountered.

I think those are the most helpful things you've said.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: And secondly, I'm not asking for help on what to do about people online or at these conventions.

You don't have to ask for help in order to be courteous enough to accept it with grace.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Also I don't know why people need a context to my argument, or keep asking me "What I want" or "What I did".

Because those things matter. You can go with vague assertions if you want, but they're absolutely worthless here.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: When arguing with theists it seems sufficient to make fairly abstract arguments like paradoxes.

We're not theists, and you're not arguing about something abstract, you're making a concrete claim. Those require evidence if you expect reasonable people to believe them.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Considering how prone statements are to misinterpretation, I'll try to be exact.

Good idea.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - Atheists contend : There are no valid reasons to believe in god. Theism is irrational. A rational person must identify as an atheist.

Sigh. Plenty of atheists don't believe a rational person must identify as an atheist. For instance, most of us regard Neil DeGrasse Tyson as rational, and he does not identify as an atheist. There are rational reasons why someone might not want to identify as an atheist. And I don't think it's irrational to believe what you've been raised to believe your whole life and what everyone you love believes, if you've never had a reasonable chance to gain the mental tools to escape that belief.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - Given atheism is only about disbelief, each atheist identifies or seeks to identify with something else.

Given that it's impossible to both be able to have an opinion and only have one, no seeking is necessary, all atheists and theists necessarily have other opinions besides their opinion about God(s).

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - There are good reasons to be humanist.

I agree. That's why I'm a humanist.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Alternately, a society that evolves with humanist principles is superior to a society where everyone acts according to a self defined morality.

Unless they're very good at it.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: A rational person must identify as a humanist.

That's not only utter nonsense, but a very non-humanist thing to say.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - An atheist therefore must also identify as a humanist.

The ONLY thing an atheist must do is not believe in God. And that's not because they aren't allowed to believe in God, it's just that if they do, they stop being an atheist in that moment.

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Here's what I ask, do you agree with the third point?

I have to go with 'no'.

(December 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 17, 2014 at 9:15 am)SoFarEast Wrote: And I feel there has to be some set of principles that limit bad behavior. It's just not right when the others shrug their shoulders to these acts.

How do you propose to impose those principle on groups to which you don't belong? You're certainly free to join the group you consider the most despicable and try to change it from within. That's far more likely to have an impact than complaining to random atheists about it.

I am against misogyny and I try to speak out against it as much as possible. If this thread helped the slightest bit against it, then great. But it's not what I'm here for.

If I may explain the post you quoted, it was a follow up after someone asked about instances of bad behavior I witnessed. It was not the purpose of the starting this thread.

There's always too much advice available.

(December 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Granted. But freedom of religion is really freedom of belief and conscience. It means atheist groups have just as much right to be wrong as anyone else does, and the only thing we can do to counter it is exercise our own freedom to express our convictions.

Same as above. This is not in the context of my original question. I would desist from answering to these to further add to the confusion.

(December 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 17, 2014 at 9:15 am)SoFarEast Wrote: And when they are meeting up regularly, whats to stop a crazy bunch from doing some damage?

Are you talking about terrorism? Really?

A huge stretch from 'some damage' to 'terrorism' don't you think. I'd think even a stray instance of vandalism qualifies as 'some damage'. You're taking a bit too much liberty interpreting me aren't you?

Then perhaps you should be a bit clearer with what exactly you're trying to say and what exactly you're asking, because there are apparently numerous people who are confused.

I am utterly confused again.

(December 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm)SoFarEast Wrote: The fuck are you talking about? I have clearly explained my understanding of the source of misogyny in people around me is remnants of my national culture of misogyny. Picked all those stats off the net? Ever lived within such a society?

Imagine then laying hope on reason and rationality, and going to crude atheist meetings and see people totally disinterested in any change. Get that? Fuck off jackass!

I think his criticism is rather apt. Rather than working to change what is obviously a serious problem in your society, one that extends to violent assault against women, you come to an Internet forum and start throwing around comparisons to cults, and overbroad accusations of homophobia and sexism?

Seems to me like you ought to have bigger fish to fry.

No one here is arguing that there is not sexism and homophobia in atheist ranks. Many of us here have, both here and elsewhere, have spoken up vociferously regarding those failings, both within the atheist community (such as it is), and in our broader society. To then have someone come in and castigate us as being cultish bigots without noting that he's living in a society where such problems extend much, much deeper -- well, I suppose Internet activism is cheaper.

Have you done anything to help alleviate the plights of Indian women?

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: And secondly, I'm not asking for help on what to do about people online or at these conventions.

You don't have to ask for help in order to be courteous enough to accept it with grace.

I've accepted it gracefully enough.

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Also I don't know why people need a context to my argument, or keep asking me "What I want" or "What I did".

Because those things matter. You can go with vague assertions if you want, but they're absolutely worthless here.

I'm not making vague assertions. I'm making a generic claim which I argue applies irrespective of geographic location. So me choosing to keep context (here my nationality) out of it is sensible enough.

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: When arguing with theists it seems sufficient to make fairly abstract arguments like paradoxes.

We're not theists, and you're not arguing about something abstract, you're making a concrete claim. Those require evidence if you expect reasonable people to believe them.

You mean vague concrete assertions? Doesn't add up.

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - Atheists contend : There are no valid reasons to believe in god. Theism is irrational. A rational person must identify as an atheist.

Sigh. Plenty of atheists don't believe a rational person must identify as an atheist. For instance, most of us regard Neil DeGrasse Tyson as rational, and he does not identify as an atheist. There are rational reasons why someone might not want to identify as an atheist. And I don't think it's irrational to believe what you've been raised to believe your whole life and what everyone you love believes, if you've never had a reasonable chance to gain the mental tools to escape that belief.

This is completely irrelevant and total rubbish.

Everyone is born an atheist. Almost everyone comes across various ideas of a god. Once one identifies as an atheist, he has chosen to reject every such idea of god, and sees atheism as a valid stance. A rational person only identifies with what he would consider a valid stance. Any person seeking to identify with a valid stance is also attempting to be rational.

Also, you've bypassed the whole question by trying to separate rationality and mental faculty into two non overlapping sets. Would you deny someone with better mental tools is more rational?

Also, it's of no concern as to what the public consensus is on this Neil dude .

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - Given atheism is only about disbelief, each atheist identifies or seeks to identify with something else.

Given that it's impossible to both be able to have an opinion and only have one, no seeking is necessary, all atheists and theists necessarily have other opinions besides their opinion about God(s).

Some actively seek. Are you saying people don't search for an identity?

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: A rational person must identify as a humanist.

That's not only utter nonsense, but a very non-humanist thing to say.

Who said it's a humanist thing? It's a logical conclusion if point 3 holds up.

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: - An atheist therefore must also identify as a humanist.

The ONLY thing an atheist must do is not believe in God. And that's not because they aren't allowed to believe in God, it's just that if they do, they stop being an atheist in that moment.

Someone has to count how many times this has been said.

(December 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 18, 2014 at 9:19 am)SoFarEast Wrote: Here's what I ask, do you agree with the third point?

I have to go with 'no'.

Thanks. That's the closest I've got to an answer.

I'm not nitpicking and replying. As for all your other points which I have not responded to, I am in agreement with them

(December 17, 2014 at 1:42 pm)SoFarEast Wrote: Hello Parkers.

No I am not making generalizations and am not ignoring its roots. I am arguing these atheist meetings are doing little in that matter, or that is my opinion. I am insisting someone address deeper misogyny, everyone else is busy telling me the definition of "Atheism".

The reason for that is because atheism doesn't address relations between the genders, or differences in sexuality. You're stretching the term beyond its meaning.

Perhaps it might help you to understand that not all atheists are rational people. But yes, you were making an overbroad generalization.

I agree that atheists should do more to combat sexism and homophobia within its ranks. I also think that greater good is served when they address sexism and homophobia in the wider world outside the atheist terrarium -- because there are many religions which openly advocate for sexism, bigotry, and so on.

---

(December 17, 2014 at 2:29 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(December 17, 2014 at 2:21 pm)SoFarEast Wrote: The logic brigade would call "Strawman", but then that's their job.

What is a logic brigade? Some kind of dildo?

Watch out, that's sexist.