• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why are so many atheists oppose social justice?

Atheists share a lack of belief in Gods. Other than that, as a group, nothing.
 
TheGoverness said:
No there isn't. Atheists aren't unified in the slightest.
Click to expand...

We tried to have a Reason Rally that takes a stand against racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transexism but a lot of people like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason and Sargon of Akkkad complain about how "SJWs" have taken over atheism and that atheism should only be a movement of straight white males like Hitchens/Dennett/Harris/Dawkins.

People who oppose "SJWs" are people that think reason and objective evidence only matters in the physical sciences and not in social sciences that show conclusively how SHIRT (sexism heterosexism Islamophobia, Racism, transexism) rigidly shapes society.

Atheism isn't unified beciause of people in the movement can't let go of their bigotry.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Huh? Do you even know what I'm referring to?

I'm referring to atheists types like the Governess who rail against "SJWs" and groups of atheists on youtube who fight "SJWs" with plenty of followers.

As atheists, we are supposed to be about objective evidence and that means acknowledging truths in social science about racism, sexism, homohpobia, and transphobia.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you think that all atheists should be far left, because you think that is logical. When in reality atheists are not a group that is bound by your rules.

ANd the main problem with so called "Social Justice Warriors" is that they exploit "racism, sexism, homohpobia, and transphobia" as propaganda for their specific brand of far left crap. Its a package deal.
Sure SJW's will deny it, but its no different than the far right exploiting the things that they exploit, to gain new followers. Yes I am against racism, sexism, homohpobia, transphobia but I am also against Marxism and a host of other political ideas. In fact I find the entire left/right politics thing to be illogical. And the root of the "Social Justice Warriors" message is that capitalism is the cause. So what they are actually saying is that if you want to end these bad things you must end capitalism. It doesnt take much to figure out what they are getting at.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We tried to have a Reason Rally that takes a stand against racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transexism but a lot of people like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason and Sargon of Akkkad complain about how "SJWs" have taken over atheism and that atheism should only be a movement of straight white males like Hitchens/Dennett/Harris/Dawkins.

People who oppose "SJWs" are people that think reason and objective evidence only matters in the physical sciences and not in social sciences that show conclusively how SHIRT (sexism heterosexism Islamophobia, Racism, transexism) rigidly shapes society.

Atheism isn't unified beciause of people in the movement can't let go of their bigotry.
Click to expand...

Atheism should never be a movement; only a position.
 
why are so many dixiecrats interested in, "structural violence?"

oh.

why is there a pedearst heroin cartel impersonating liberals?

 
FreedomFromAll said:
The problem is that you think that all atheists should be far left, because you think that is logical. When in reality atheists are not a group that is bound by your rules.

ANd the main problem with so called "Social Justice Warriors" is that they exploit "racism, sexism, homohpobia, and transphobia" as propaganda for their specific brand of far left crap. Its a package deal.
Sure SJW's will deny it, but its no different than the far right exploiting the things that they exploit, to gain new followers. Yes I am against racism, sexism, homohpobia, transphobia but I am also against Marxism and a host of other political ideas. In fact I find the entire left/right politics thing to be illogical. And the root of the "Social Justice Warriors" message is that capitalism is the cause. So what they are actually saying is that if you want to end these bad things you must end capitalism. It doesnt take much to figure out what they are getting at.
Click to expand...

There's a reason that social scientists are a bunch of "lib'rals" who want to fight SHIRT.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
There's a reason that social scientists are a bunch of "lib'rals" who want to fight SHIRT.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as social science. Science is strictly rational and follows evidence. What you describe is anything but. It's all touchy feely nonsense.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We tried to have a Reason Rally that takes a stand against racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transexism but a lot of people like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason and Sargon of Akkkad complain about how "SJWs" have taken over atheism and that atheism should only be a movement of straight white males like Hitchens/Dennett/Harris/Dawkins.

People who oppose "SJWs" are people that think reason and objective evidence only matters in the physical sciences and not in social sciences that show conclusively how SHIRT (sexism heterosexism Islamophobia, Racism, transexism) rigidly shapes society.

Atheism isn't unified beciause of people in the movement can't let go of their bigotry.
Click to expand...

How can you have a "Reason Rally" when your position isn't even reasonable to begin with?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Huh? Do you even know what I'm referring to?

I'm referring to atheists types like the Governess who rail against "SJWs" and groups of atheists on youtube who fight "SJWs" with plenty of followers.

As atheists, we are supposed to be about objective evidence and that means acknowledging truths in social science about racism, sexism, homohpobia, and transphobia.
Click to expand...

It sounds like your version of atheism is a political party.
 
Brewdog said:
It sounds like your version of atheism is a political party.
Click to expand...

Which, unfortunately, is what a lot of people on the political left want to do. I see people who want to roll absolutely every position they hold under a single label and have that represent the whole of their religious/political/social views. And then they consume their own. Reality doesn't work that way.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
No, its simply about forming ideas based on objective evidence.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not about objective evidence. It's a belief structure that has no evidence to support it.
 
Henrin said:
Atheism is not about objective evidence. It's a belief structure that has no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Because atheists books aren't 2000 years old? Perhaps we'll wait 2000 years and then atheism will then have merit.
 
Henrin said:
Atheism is not about objective evidence. It's a belief structure that has no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. The lack of evidence for any gods is evidence for atheism, the lack of belief in said gods. No evidence = no belief.
 
Brewdog said:
Because atheists books aren't 2000 years old? Perhaps we'll wait 2000 years and then atheism will then have merit.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think I'm religious or something? Where is the proof that there is no gods? Did scientists figure out that answer when I wasn't looking?
 
Cephus said:
Of course there is. The lack of evidence for any gods is evidence for atheism, the lack of belief in said gods. No evidence = no belief.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. If there is gods then I expect proof and if there is no gods then I again expect proof. You can't just get out of having the burden of proof because you think that somehow the burden always rests with religious people. Atheists have this silly notion that they just ignore that they are making a claim just like religious people are making a claim. If you make a claim then I expect proof, period.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That's not how it works. If there is gods then I expect proof and if there is no gods then I again expect proof.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying there are no gods, they are saying there is insufficient evidence, in this case absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that these gods actually exist, hence atheists do not believe in them.
 
Cephus said:
Nobody is saying there are no gods, they are saying there is insufficient evidence, in this case absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that these gods actually exist, hence atheists do not believe in them.
Click to expand...

Plenty of atheists say that god doesn't exist. If you're making such a concrete statement it must have proof.
 
Henrin said:
Plenty of atheists say that god doesn't exist. If you're making such a concrete statement it must have proof.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that though. I'm saying there's no evidence that gods do exist, hence I don't believe in them. If you have a beef with other people, then try specifying those people instead of trying to paint with a broad brush.
 
I don't have to prove a negative. If someone wants to claim there IS a creator, then they need to provide proof in some form other than a book written thousands of years ago by superstitious people.

All atheists have to do to debunk God are to point at inconsistencies within religion and provide logical viewpoints that there can't logically be a god. The most notable being "Who created god?" If there's a god, then he needs a creator. If the universe NEEDS a creator to explain its existence, then that creator also needs an explanation. And there isn't one. Religious people won't even attempt to answer that question. They always say, "God just exists and always has."
 
Cephus said:
Nobody is saying there are no gods, they are saying there is insufficient evidence, in this case absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that these gods actually exist, hence atheists do not believe in them.
Click to expand...

At what point does the total lack of evidence and reason indicate a conclusion?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
At what point does the total lack of evidence and reason indicate a conclusion?
Click to expand...

Conclusions are provisional. If evidence comes along, I'll reconsider my conclusion. So far it hasn't, therefore I haven't.
 
Cephus said:
Conclusions are provisional. If evidence comes along, I'll reconsider my conclusion. So far it hasn't, therefore I haven't.
Click to expand...

And as soon as someone can make gods a logical, rational conclusion, Ill reconsider as well. Until that impossibility happens, I will come to the same conclusion on gods as I do on any other made up crap that comes my way. Hell at this point we dont even need to talk about evidence for something so damn ridiculous and irrational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom