"I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"

[Shell B]

To Shell B.

I disagree with the idea that, as atheists, we are not part of a group. We share this lack of belief and that is enough to make us a group, we do not need any other common factors to be a group. This board is a good example of that.

Of course, I disagree with that. We are not enough a part of a group for one's actions to reflect on the whole. Some atheists are racist. Does that embarrass me? No, because I am not racist. I simply don't believe in god. Does it irritate me? Yes, but only insofar as I think racism is the epitome of stupidity. If you're going to consistently lump yourself in with all atheists, you will always feel the disappointment you feel now.

[Rwandrall]

You have to remember though, Rwan, that Adrian made this board partly as a sanctuary where we COULD safely speak our minds.

Anyone who knows Min - ie, anyone who spends time on this board at any length, knows Min is smart enough to hate beliefs, not the person, and that he despises those who don't look at things like religion critically. He doesn't pretty up his words because he's on his turf at the moment - not theirs. That's why we have rules for theists, not atheists.

If you're a boy and come into my girls only clubhouse, you'd have to follow the same sort of thinking.

If anyone cares about my REAL opinion, I don't think eliminating the douchebags will change the stereotype. I think all of the reasonable, cordial, ethical and wonderful atheists there are in the world "coming out" would do way more to open people's eyes to how 'normal' they really are. After all...it's the sheer number of Christians that allows us to see the mix of good and bad, yeah?

We should be allowed to speak our minds anywhere and there is nothing wrong with that. But i can disagree with someone else's rethoric if i believe it is wrong and explain my reasons for disagreeing with it without stopping people from speaking their minds.

Just because we are on an atheist board does not mean i cannot condemn what other atheists say if i find it damaging.
Also, yes people who know Min know what he means, BUT what matter is the appearances. You can say anything you like, and then say "but i didn't actually MEAN that, it was an hyperbole", this does not make it okay to say whatever you want, even on your own turf. And if that seems like i want hippie politically correct speech, it is only because so much of the dialogue, on both sides, is way too extreme.

I do think we need to avoid this kind of statement because anyone who does not agree with our positions will likely take it literally, which will reinforce the stereotype and make any debate harder. You can disagree with, even mock someone without making generalizations or childish insults.

---

Of course, I disagree with that. We are not enough a part of a group for one's actions to reflect on the whole. Some atheists are racist. Does that embarrass me? No, because I am not racist. I simply don't believe in god. Does it irritate me? Yes, but only insofar as I think racism is the epitome of stupidity. If you're going to consistently lump yourself in with all atheists, you will always feel the disappointment you feel now.

I limit my reactions to other atheists' actions only on issues concerning religion because it is naturally the only thing that i share with other atheists. It would be ridiculous to read about an atheist shooting someone and feeling embarrassed, of course. But when i share a position with someone else, when that person makes this position look bad i am allowed to say i object to their behavior.

[Shell B]

All I can say is that they don't make our position look bad. They make themselves look bad. If other people want to see it differently, it is their fault a stereotype exists.

[thesummerqueen]

I tried sussing it out when I first saw Phil's video, but I'd love to know where exactly, beyond the vague idiocies that crop up on this forum, you see the extreme statements being made. Just as examples.

[everythingafter]

I have seen an alarming trend around the Internet: atheists insulting theists for the purpose of insulting.

I get into debates with believers on facebook now and then (holdovers from my days as a churchgoer). I try to only attack their arguments, rather than attempt to get them riled up just for the heck of it. I think the person you quoted was trying to make a point of some kind, although a weak one. I've always believed in the idea that if a person wants to make a fool of themselves in a public forum, that's their prerogative.

[reverendjeremiah]

That is the kind of rethoric i do not agree with: taglines like "fascist" only make dialogue harder. Again, if you consider the one you speak to to be a fascist, it's pretty likely that you are not going to listen to anything they have to say.

Also, the ones who make the news are always the most extreme ones. So judging a whole group of people by its most extreme members is wrong.
______________________________________

I see no problem in calling a fascist a fascist. You havent been keeping up with these Christian nationalists have you? The things that come out of their computers?; Ban unions, ban non-protestants, ban democrats, ban homosexuality, ban constitutional protections to non right wing conservatives, ban atheism, ban islam, ban immigrants, ban taxes on the rich, ban taxes on corporations, corporations should be allowed to throw as much money into buying politicians as they want, protestant Christianity should be taught as history and science, you are not allowed to be free from christianity, slavery wasnt bad, we should invade every country that we can, bomb them all.. and most dont mind the idea of bullets flying into the heads of everything they want banned. THAT is fascist... and to top it off, they try to say they arent fascist, and that the liberals are really the racist nazis.

If they act fascist, and support fascism, then they are fascists.

[Minimalist]

Same goes for generalizations like Minimalist's recent "fuck all catholics".

And I shall repeat it.

ANYONE who tolerates the institutionalized pedophilia conducted by, enabled, and perpetuated by the church by remaining an active member of the organization is guilty of supporting a criminal enterprise.

I cannot, and will not, be kind about this. Anyone who is still a card-carrying catholic is a fucking moron or worse.


Those "catholics" who quit are obviously not included....but Herr Von Popenfuhrer would be the first to call them "ex-catholics".



"i do not agree with: taglines like "fascist" only make dialogue harder."

So its okay for them to BE fascists but just don't call them that because.....what? It hurts their fucking feelings?

[reverendjeremiah]

Same goes for generalizations like Minimalist's recent "fuck all catholics".

And I shall repeat it.

ANYONE who tolerates the institutionalized pedophilia conducted by, enabled, and perpetuated by the church by remaining an active member of the organization is guilty of supporting a criminal enterprise.

I cannot, and will not, be kind about this. Anyone who is still a card-carrying catholic is a fucking moron or worse.


Those "catholics" who quit are obviously not included....but Herr Von Popenfuhrer would be the first to call them "ex-catholics".



"i do not agree with: taglines like "fascist" only make dialogue harder."

So its okay for them to BE fascists but just don't call them that because.....what? It hurts their fucking feelings?

Looks like me and minimalist agree across the entire line on this issue.

[Rwandrall]

@Shell B

Well i can just disagree. Anyone's actions have repercussions, be it on a small or big scale, on groups this person belongs on others' perceptions.

@thesummerqueen

"fuck everyones religion, it's nothing but a joke to seperate everyone and turn us against eachother. So you read a fuckin book called the Quran or Bible and you suddenly are a religious mother fucker? Get the fuck out. Fuck god, fuck christianity, fuck islam, fuck all that bull shit. We as people are born free, with nothing but freedom. That's how it should be and stay."

"FUCK RELIGION!
RELIGION IS A DISGRACE TO HUMANITY!
DEATH TO RELIGION!"

"without religion, we would have no war! I love this song! FUCK religion!"

"Religion is nothing more than mind control and repression. "


Found on a quick youtube comments search. Yes it's not too bad but it really does show not disagreement, but blind hatred, which is never good. Especially the "fuck God" really does not help the mindset that atheists are only hating God for no rational reason.

The problem is not necessarily the comments themselves, it's the mindset behind them. The condescension and the spite is what i find wrong.

@reverendjeremiah and Minimalist.

There are some fascists. There are assholes. And they deserve to be called what they are. But most people are not extremists, and so calling them as such sounds douchebaggy and ignorant.

Now, yes, of course, catholics that still dismiss what their Church does are assholes. But the majority of Catholics do not go to Church, and they condemn its actions. I know in my country of France it's about, what, 10% weekly attendance for Catholics ? And they are still Catholics. As i said before, not going to Church does not make you a non-catholic in any way.

[Angrboda]

I disagree with the idea that, as atheists, we are not part of a group. We share this lack of belief and that is enough to make us a group, we do not need any other common factors to be a group. This board is a good example of that.

You're welcome to accept him into your group, but he is under no obligation to consider you a part of his. Unless allegiances are bilateral, they are chimera. The atheist dicks of this world might just as likely want to reject you for coddling the theists. Your ideas about what is proper for your group in no way obligate anybody else.

Any action made by any member of a group reflects on how public opinion considers the other members of that group. This goes for any ideology or, in our case, lack of ideology. This is why we need to be civil, and have a reasonable discourse: the public opinion's eyes, how people see atheists, is a vital element: as long as that condescending douchebag stereotype stays, people are less likely to listen to our views.

ibid. You are manufacturing -- or attempting to manufacture -- unity in the service of a political goal. What purpose does this hypothetical group serve aside from providing the scaffoloding upon which you can mount your argument for "tactical efficiencies"? I don't see that there is one, and to quote Groucho, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. That, and I'm rather fond of, and confident in the truism of, Dawkins statement that, “Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table.”

If anyone cares about my REAL opinion, I don't think eliminating the douchebags will change the stereotype. I think all of the reasonable, cordial, ethical and wonderful atheists there are in the world "coming out" would do way more to open people's eyes to how 'normal' they really are. After all...it's the sheer number of Christians that allows us to see the mix of good and bad, yeah?

I think this view is somewhat naive and optimistic. The stereotype of the atheist (rude, depressed, malcontent, etc.) is perpetuated more because it is politically and psychologically useful to those in-groups who are threatened by atheism and free-thought. It isn't going to go away, no matter how well we behave. Before the rancorous splash of the four horsemen of the new atheism, theists were regularly painting Madalyn Murray O'Hair as a devil in a dress. Demonizing out-groups and other threats is at the core of many religions' blueprint for survival. God didn't waste a second after liberating his chosen from Egypt to turn them loose upon a mass of Canaanites whose only real crime was that they were in the way. (Not that any of the conquest of Canaan actually happened, but regardless it was important enough to set a precedent for the attitude, even if it was not based on real events.)