A few points of conflict with Jackie L's (Eilonnwy) article.

[theVOID]

VOID - for "white men" I read males of our civilised society. To me the bickering over her exact words is missing the very clear point she's making. Like pulling her up on the definition of atheism... I'd have thought people here would have noticed Eilonnwy reiterating the distinction but here you need to pull apart her words and drop in the accusation. It's more feeding time at the zoo than trying to honestly see a persons point of view.

I wasn't bickering over the exact words, It was about her argument in general, that being it's complete bullshit.

The argument she made was:

1. Atheists are disproportionately white males
2. White males have privilege
3. Non-(white males) dislike white male privilege
4. Therefore white males hinder the growth of atheism.

And this argument is flawed for the following reason alone.

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

[fr0d0]

Indeed TSQ you are correct. Shame they can't read between the lines to see what's really being said.

As usual Tav your mission is to divert the argument away from it's subject and onto your own like people will somehow forget the point and think you're a great guy with the rational diversions all adding up.

1. If her answer was bullshit why not address it rather than misquote it and make a point from the mis-quote?

2. We are those bigoted assholes Tav

5. the subject is we as a whole and not you Tav

7. To re-iterate: I'm talking about sexism, and the oppression of reasonable minority opinion. By 'society' I meant wider society.

8. What was bigoted were certain expressed opinions. You posted pictures of your GF as some sort of prize you'd won. I took it as bigoted.

[theVOID]

To re-iterate: I'm talking about sexism, and the oppression of reasonable minority opinion. By 'society' I meant wider society.

Sexism is a largely a religious thing, caused by indoctrination, mostly in the fraudulent pastoral epsitles, that fraudulent document accepted blindly as scripture by Christians is mostly responsible for the sexism prevalent in western culture, it's long since become a meme but it's origins are clear.

[Anomalocaris]

The argument she made was:

1. Atheists are disproportionately white males
2. White males have privilege
3. Non-(white males) dislike white male privilege
4. Therefore white males hinder the growth of atheism.

And this argument is flawed for the following reason alone.

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

The analogy between your example and her proposition is not sound because you have not excluded the possibility that the separate common psychological drivers for adoptation of Atheism and Christianity would react differently to the perceived privilege of the main holders of each system of belief.

[fr0d0]

It seems we totally disagree on the subject matter then.

This isn't my argument or anything like, but I'd still like to answer this if that's ok...

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

I can't see your first point... are you including hispanic there?
Non white male adoption of Christianity serves the ambition of the non white male... seems to be little choice there. I heard on the radio last week some stats I'd never find I'm sure... that once introduced to 'civilization' hardly any natives returned to their own cultural religious expression, and most adopted Christianity.
So civilization rams 'Christianity' down the throats of anyone poor enough to not fight back... and that proves our western culture isn't guilty of imposing privilege?

[theVOID]

The argument she made was:

1. Atheists are disproportionately white males
2. White males have privilege
3. Non-(white males) dislike white male privilege
4. Therefore white males hinder the growth of atheism.

And this argument is flawed for the following reason alone.

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

The analogy between your example and her proposition is not sound because you have not excluded the possibility that the separate common psychological drivers for adoptation of Atheism and Christianity would react differently to the perceived privilege of the main holders of each system of belief.

Well neither has she, so all else being equal (which hasn't been shown not to be the case) my point stands. A shit argument doesn't need a comprehensive and analytic rebuttal.

[theVOID]

It seems we totally disagree on the subject matter then.

This isn't my argument or anything like, but I'd still like to answer this if that's ok...

More white males are Christian and, especially historically, Christian white males have had more privilege than Atheist white males, yet non-(white male) adoption of Christianity is unhindered, in fact adoption rates amongst non-whites are higher despite the higher privilege, This renders her ENTIRE argument invalid.

I can't see your first point... are you including hispanic there?

Sure am.

Historically, in western culture, the vast majority of so called 'privileged white males' have been and still are Christian, yet this has clearly not impacted the eventual adoption of Christianity amongst non-(white males). So to say that if Privileged person holds position X then the unprivileged person is less likely to adopt position X is fallacious.

This was the whole point of her argument, white men are inhibiting the prominence of atheism. It's false, even the ones who are in fact assholes, like PZ Myers, are still contributing to the overall growth of atheism despite their tone or 'abuse of privilege'.

Non white male adoption of Christianity serves the ambition of the non white male... seems to be little choice there. I heard on the radio last week some stats I'd never find I'm sure... that once introduced to 'civilization' hardly any natives returned to their own cultural religious expression, and most adopted Christianity.

Right, and this was despite the premise in Eil's argument. Therefore to conclude that because the premise is true in the case of Atheism it thereby affects the minority adoption of the position seems quite clearly to be completely unfounded.

So civilization rams 'Christianity' down the throats of anyone poor enough to not fight back... and that proves our western culture isn't guilty of imposing privilege?

I agree with you here that privilege was certainly used to indoctrinate Christians, however this seems to be the complete opposite of what Eil said, that being this privilege is hindering the adoption of Atheism.

Not only that, but she never clarifies what these privileges are. I certainly have some unfair advantages as a white male, namely in the workplace where I am more likely to be hired and paid more for equal performance and qualification - I hate that this happens, and as a future employer it certainly won't be the case for me, but the fact that this happens is something that seems to have no impact on the religious debate, in fact I am struggling to think of any privilege I have that is remotely relevant in the debate... Is the fact that non-whites suffer more from racist police relevant? Nope, What else? Eilonnwy never said which privileges these are, which is striking as it would logically be an essential part of any argument based on such a premise.

[Live_free]

Just gonna say one thing then I will go back to laughing my ass off.


I have never witnessed this many stupid and fallacious bullshit posts on a forum other then christianforums. The sheer number of overzealous and ignorant/arrogant posts by namely frodo is utterly disturbing.

What is funny is that now he will never understand the real issue at hand, because he has so much emotionally invested in this argument that he won't just give it up. He would look like an utter fool, more so then he already does.*

Now I can properly equate Ely as a theist thinker and frodo as someone who has been mentally stifled, brain damage.

*Note: This is an emotional reason people cling to religion as well. I'm seeing a correlation in frodos case.

[Minimalist]

1. Atheists are disproportionately white males

Wait. Isn't that the fault of women, too?

[tavarish]

Jesus tapdancing Christ, fr0d0.

Getting you to recognize a logical, reasoned argument is fucking impossible.

---

1. Atheists are disproportionately white males

Wait. Isn't that the fault of women, too?

PRIVILEGE ALERT!!!!