Given a call for inclusiveness in the atheist community

[james_davis_nicoll]

how long would you guess it would take for the first denunciation of such wrong-thinkery?

Comments

[onyxlynx]

Oh, I'd bet less than thirty seconds.

(Now I'll check out the link.)

ETA: Yup.

[thejeopardymaze]

*grabs popcorn*

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

What, a social movement inspired by the excesses of Anglo-American Protestantism and promoted by middle-aged blowhards is not terribly inclusive, caring, or supportive itself?

Why, you're trying to sneak in theistic morality into our rational society!

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

There was a lot of overlap among freethinking, feminism, socialism and abolitionism. Obviously not perfect, but still.

Strikes me that a good candidate for "middle-aged blowhard inspired by Anglo-American Protestantism" could be P. Z. Myers... who's on the other side of this.

[jayblanc.livejournal.com]

Apparently, only a few minutes?

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

From the title of the article alone I did kind of figure the very first response would be such a denunciation, and behold!

[jayblanc.livejournal.com]

Dawkinists are a very insular close knit church after all.

[seawasp]

I'm guessing it'd be the first comment.

(checks)

Why, I'm right. What a surprise.

[dbdatvic.livejournal.com]

I was gonna guess second comment. I am sad to lose.

--Dave

[yendi]

As a longtime Skepchick reader, I'd guess about as long as it took you to write three words of this post.

[http://users.livejournal.com/krin_o_o_/]

This is one of those times that the "memetic prophylactic recommended" tag does not do justice to the content beyond the link

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

Ooh - I am almost tempted to go look, as at a house on fire.

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

Seconds, at least -- it takes time to type.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

From the first comment:

I for one will not in any way legitimise their horrible behaviour by compromising with them in order to further our aims. That is a slippery slope. It is the beginning of the road that leads to corruption and cover up.

They are unpleasant, bullying, divisive, and vindictive. They are themselves incapable of compromise. I want nothing to do with them.

Why is this guy talking like a Bolshevik in 1917? Is he worried about maintaining doctrinal purity after they overthrow the Vatican?

[ccw71266.livejournal.com]

I don't expect a group that defines itself by its lack of religious tolerance to have a good record on other sorts of tolerance.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Because one can't be intolerant towards irrational beliefs with no basis in observable reality without being intolerant towards things that are not beliefs? Sorry, I'm not following that logic.

[rachel-swirsky.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Stupid atheists. Disliking living in a society where faith is assumed and privileged. TOLERANCE, atheists. TOLERANCE.

[lurkingcanadian.livejournal.com]

I confess, I thought it would take more than one comment.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

It really is amazing to me, as someone who is an atheist by rationality rather than a political one, just how unpleasant and misogynistic the political grouping tends to be. Serious overlap with the creepy MRA attitudes in a lot of cases. It doesn't seem a natural outgrowth, so I am wondering what the hell happened in the development of the movement that did it -- early misogynist bellweather leaders who drove away women (and feminist men) and attracted more misogynists, resulting an self-perpetuating cycle?

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I am wondering what the hell happened in the development of the movement that did it

I don't know the details of how this happened*, but the early association between atheists and libertarians pretty clearly looks to be the reason. If most of the libertarians found another niche, I rather suspect the atheist community would look considerably less vile.

* I suspect the reason is that Ayn Rand was an atheist.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

I have theories on this:

(1) Historically, women have been perceived as the "irrational" and pious gender. Hence, the aggressively-rationalist flavor of atheism is likely to disproportionately attract misogynists.

(2) It's tremendously easy, when setting yourself up as a champion of true rationalism, to consider yourself as an example of the same, and thus to dismiss any experience that differs from your own as "irrational." This dovetails beautifully with a default straight-white-male viewpoint. So you get men saying, "Why should any woman feel threatened by some guy hitting on her in an elevator alone at 4 am? That's just IRRATIONAL," by which they actually mean, "This involves phenomena outside my experience, therefore I will dismiss it as not worthy of consideration." If they weren't atheists, they'd say, "It's sexist to assume all men are rapists! Women are such hypocrites!"

As a committed agnostic myself, I find the most prominent representatives of atheism to be perfectly loathsome. Which is unfortunate. If I were fond of unyielding zealotry, I could join some fundamentalist group.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Here's one unfortunate reason.

There are atheists and then there are "atheists".

The latter are those who decided, when they were fourteen-year-old boys, that part of their teenaged rebellion would include a hormone-based rejection of their parents' religion. They didn't become atheists through rational thought or political dislike of the religious; they did it to piss off their parents.

Thus their atheism coincided with their adolescence, which is also when misogyny (for some men) gets identified with their sexuality - and thus also associated with "growing up" and "being an adult".

And a lot of men, sadly, remain in this adolescent state for the rest of their lives. Particularly if they find a reason to halt their emotional development at fourteen. The misogyny simply stays with the rest of it.

[michael a. davis (from livejournal.com)]

That commentor does have a lot of people going after him (and rightly so), James. Supporters, too, sure.

[al-zorra.livejournal.com]

I haven't a clue as to what that link is about.

Are there really 'atheist' groups and communities? I don't get it. Christians of all kinds, Muslims, Jews -- they have communities. So do other groups, whether religious or not. I simply cannot imagine being in a community whose bond is that you aren't a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew or any other officially recognized religion.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

Christians of all kinds, Muslims, Jews -- they have communities. So do other groups, whether religious or not.

I don't follow. Why doesn't a group of atheists fall into "other groups, whether religious or not"?

[montedavis.livejournal.com]

Sure, religions have millennia of schism and heresy-hunting to be proud of. But the skeptics are playing a strong game of catch-up here, and I for one have faith rational conviction that they can do it.

[michael a. davis (from livejournal.com)]

Movement politics = the one true faith? I could see that. "We have a group; let's stick it to the people outside that group" is one of the fundamental human creeds, among the religious or otherwise.