- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40,978
- Reaction score
- 55,199
- Location
- Houston Area, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
There is a community of atheists??
No there isn't. Atheists aren't unified in the slightest.
There is a community of atheists??
No there isn't. Atheists aren't unified in the slightest.
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.
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.
Being an atheist only means you don't believe in the existence of gods. It has nothing to do with thoughts on other subjects.
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.
There's a reason that social scientists are a bunch of "lib'rals" who want to fight SHIRT.
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.
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.
It sounds like your version of atheism is a political party.
It sounds like your version of atheism is a political party.
No, its simply about forming ideas based on objective evidence.
Atheism is not about objective evidence. It's a belief structure that has no evidence to support it.
Atheism is not about objective evidence. It's a belief structure that has no evidence to support it.
Because atheists books aren't 2000 years old? Perhaps we'll wait 2000 years and then atheism will then have merit.
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.
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.
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.
Plenty of atheists say that god doesn't exist. If you're making such a concrete statement it must have proof.
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.
At what point does the total lack of evidence and reason indicate a conclusion?
Conclusions are provisional. If evidence comes along, I'll reconsider my conclusion. So far it hasn't, therefore I haven't.