https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/964354

Or did they fix that problem?

https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/sam-harris-responds-to-allegations-against-lawrence-krauss/


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/613270/brazen-sexism-is-pushing-women-out-of-americas-atheism-movement/amp/

You do realize that the first article is over 7 years old, right?

Just checking.

Slight overreaction coming.


THERE IS NO GODDAMMIT ATHEIST MOVEMENT.

Thank you Jacob.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slight overreaction coming.
>
>
> THERE IS NO GODDAMMIT ATHEIST MOVEMENT.

Wait, so the New Atheist Movement died? I never saw the Obit in the NYT. When was that exactly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

No wonder Einstein really didn't like guys like you,

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 06:14PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No wonder Einstein really didn't like guys like
> you,
>
> "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the
> idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may
> call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
> crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose
> fervor is mostly due to a painful act of
> liberation from the fetters of religious
> indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an
> attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness
> of our intellectual understanding of nature and of
> our own being."

Translation:

Believing in a personal god is like believing in Santa Clause.

Call me agnostic if you want but I'm not going to call myself that.

I would call myself atheist but there is baggage with that word that I don't like.

What I do know is that I don't know and neither do you.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No wonder Einstein really didn't like guys like
> > you,
> >
> > "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the
> > idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You
> may
> > call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
> > crusading spirit of the professional atheist
> whose
> > fervor is mostly due to a painful act of
> > liberation from the fetters of religious
> > indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an
> > attitude of humility corresponding to the
> weakness
> > of our intellectual understanding of nature and
> of
> > our own being."
>
> Translation:
>
> Believing in a personal god is like believing in
> Santa Clause.
>
> Call me agnostic if you want but I'm not going to
> call myself that.
>
> I would call myself atheist but there is baggage
> with that word that I don't like.
>
> What I do know is that I don't know and neither do
> you.

Exactly.
"An atheist would have to know far more than me about the Cosmos" Sagan
Which is why i am not an atheist. I dont pretend to know what is impossible to know.

You know the difference between you and Einstein, Sagan, or even Dawkins?

They don't believe.

Einstein in that quote says that he isn't agnostic and he doesn't believe in god. He rejects the atheist label on philosophical grounds not on scientific grounds.

And also fallaciously begs the question by assuming an atheist movement.

Movement ? Athiest here but never heard of meetings , rallies ,signing up,etc...I do watch Hitchens , Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins You Tube videos occasionally.

If there is one, it's limited and I'm not joining.

Does koriwhore have an atheist problem?

Serious question. What's the deal with you and atheism? You seem to be trying very hard to cram it into a little categorized box.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does koriwhore have an atheist problem?
>
> Serious question. What's the deal with you and
> atheism? You seem to be trying very hard to cram
> it into a little categorized box.


First it was a God problem, now it's an Atheist problem...

What is up with that?

I’m building a particle accelerator in my basement to prove the existence of the Atheist particle.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does koriwhore have an atheist problem?
>
> Serious question. What's the deal with you and
> atheism? You seem to be trying very hard to cram
> it into a little categorized box.

I have the same problem with atheists that Einstein did,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.[29] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[29][30] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[31]

and Sagan, who famously said, "An atheist would have to know a lot more about the cosmos than me."

and Sam Harris https://samharris.org/the-problem-with-atheism/

and Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

What's the Big Idea?

Richard Dawkins, the most famous atheist in the world, created a stir when he recently declared that he was not an atheist after all, but an agnostic. The news, which came during a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury last month, seemed at first to be a big get for God. However, in The God Delusion Dawkins was frank about his agnosticism.

So, how does Dawkins square his public persona with his lack of certitude? Easily. No matter how strongly Dawkins is associated with atheism, he is first and foremost a scientist. Therefore, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other," he claims.

Similarly, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson claims the title "scientist" above all other "ists." And yet, Tyson says he is "constantly claimed by atheists." So where does Tyson stand? He tells Big Think: “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.”

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 06:04PM by koriwhore.

Got it.
Don't have any original thoughts of your own, so you cherry-pick quotes from famous people to make it look like you're "just like them."

Understood.

By the way, above you wrote:

"I have the same problem with atheists that Einstein had."

And below you wrote (poorly):

"I dont have a probkem with ateheism."

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, don't you?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 11:53AM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got it.
> Don't have any original thoughts of your own, so
> you cherry-pick quotes from famous people to make
> it look like you're "just like them."
>
> Understood.

I've got plenty of original thoughts. Atheists are typically white, male jerks with fragile egos. You're a perfect example. It just so happens youre no different from the white male jerks who bugged giys like Einstein and Sagan.
>
> By the way, above you wrote:
>
> "I have the same problem with atheists that
> Einstein had."
>
> And below you wrote (poorly):
>
> "I dont have a probkem with ateheism."
>
> You do realize that you're contradicting yourself,
> don't you?

I changed my mind, based upon my interaction with jerks like you, which I am entitled to do.
Although being a jerk isnt a requirement of atheism, it seems pretty common to "Nee Atheists".

Well, ya have to have a villain. How else can a believer feel a little bit superior without one? :)

so no movement, but here you’re classifying an entire “other.” Easy to see why people make the mistake.

Not doing something is still a thing. If a fish in a school of fish, suddenly stops swimming, it’s doing something that a rock isn’t doing because it’s defying the rest of the fish.

Not supporting abusive men=movement
Not buying junk food=movement
Not owning a home=movement
Not being monogamous=movement

Now if I’m not monogamous, I could be asexual or I could be polyamorous. I’m only describing what I’m not, like atheism. But I would still be part of the non monogamy movement because it’s a movement *away* from a social norm.

Never really understood why atheists feel so passionately about the way they are recognized. Who cares?

Just an observation about you OP, personally, but you come across as threatened by the "Atheist Movement."

Is this because you believe they will forbid you from worshiping your god(s) or is it that your belief system is on shaky ground and it needs some shoring up? Enter a diabolical foe to slay in the form of the the "Atheist Movement."

CateS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just an observation about you OP, personally, but
> you come across as threatened by the "Atheist
> Movement."
>
> Is this because you believe they will forbid you
> from worshiping your god(s) or is it that your
> belief system is on shaky ground and it needs some
> shoring up? Enter a diabolical foe to slay in the
> form of the the "Atheist Movement."

Dont shoot the messenger.
I dont have a probkem with ateheism, I am in a relationshio with an awesome atheist woman, but she is more woman than atheist.
She is more zen than anything but a mixture of everything.

This site generally picks on Christians. Funny to see the atheists getting it a little this time around!

rubi123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This site generally picks on Christians. Funny to
> see the atheists getting it a little this time
> around!

I am against Identity Politics, which seem toxic to me.
But it seems like very rarely does anybody offer a good alternative to the false dichotomy of Theism vs. Atheism.
Beneath the superficial identification we are all one, humankind.
We either excercise more empathy fir one another, we go the way of the Neanderthal.
The Oligarchs are in charge of nukes and tge ISS which will get renamed Putin/tRump Space Hotel/Cruise ship and let the drones deal with shit down here in the hell they leave behind.

Uh, atheism / theism is a true dichotomy. When you add a third position it's no longer a dichotomy.

This has been pointed out to you in the past. Atheism and Theism are dichotomous. You seem perturbed by the fact that your worldview doesn't allow for a middle ground and so you label the dichotomy false.

Did you notice that most of the posts in this thread simply observed that there is no need to defend the atheist movement because no such thing in fact exists?

If theists want to conjure a straw man, that's fine. But it would be very difficult to get most atheists/agnostics to look at that artificial creation and laugh.

Last sentence edited for ballpark accuracy:

"But it would be difficult to get most atheists/agnostics to look at that artificial creation with anything more than amusement and loud laughter."

It does indeed my Cabby Friend.

The only Atheist movement I know about is the one in the restroom.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only Atheist movement I know about is the one
> in the restroom.

Hmm, I don't know...even this atheist has been known to mutter "Oh, god!" in particularly trying circumstances there...:)

As much as I dislike the Dawkins & Hitchens fan club, I have to agree that there's no "Atheist Movement."
And I also agree that we need to fix the sexism problem widespread among Homo sapiens.

Even if there were such a thing as an "Atheist Movement," which there isn't, you do realize that the biggest religions in the world are almost completely patriarchal? Compared to Christianity or Islam, I'd say atheists are by and large very equal.

My one personal experience with the topic at hand occurred about 20 years ago. There was a "skeptic group" having a get-together at the Natural History Museum, and I decided to go.

I was mingling. I saw a woman wearing a sweathirt; on the front, it had a representation of a dinosaur on the left, an early human on the right, and "- ~63M Years -" in between. Under that, it said, "No, humans didn't ride dinosaurs."

I commented to her, "I like your sweatshirt!"

She looked at me, and said, "Sexist pig, staring at my breasts!" and walked off.

Hmph.

You just can't please some people.

Not so fast in calling the notion of an “atheist movement” a straw man or non-sequitur. According to my Oxford dictionary, one of the many definitions of movement is, “a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.” By this definition, there most certainly is an atheist movement or perhaps several. Here is one called American Atheists, who wears its agenda on its sleeve.

https://www.atheists.org/

Another such “movement” is the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

https://ffrf.org/about

Although arguably not an atheist organization per se, I recently saw Ron Reagan in a national TV add declaring proudly is personal atheism, while asking for money to further the cause against religion.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/ron-reagan-atheist-ad-burn-in-hell/2015/03/17/id/630754/

I would also add that there are numerous seminars, meetings, and discussion groups that center around atheism, and advocate either atheism directly, or oppose religion. The sponsors often attract atheist celebrities, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in order to propagate atheist ideas and draw people away from religion. (Sometimes they will invite a religious stooge as a foil for their “debate.”)

Now, in all fairness, it is not always clear just what agenda is intended, but certainly advancing the social idea of atheism is front and center. In any event, this seems is sufficient for the definition of social “movement.”

So, there is an “atheist movement” of sorts; meaning groups of atheists who are united to advance the cause of atheism, even if poorly organized and disjointed. Responders to this post who have questioned the existence of such a movement, are apparently merely distancing themselves from such movements, or making a distinction between the definition of atheism, and activism.

Notwithstanding the above, the question as to whether such movements have a problem with sexism strikes me as a bit silly, especially if the question is whether sexism is somehow connected with atheism. Whether any particular “atheist movement” has a problem with sexism requires first an identification of what atheist movement one is talking about, and second whether there is some statistical predominance of sexism within that movement that is striking. Absent such specific facts, the whole question seems like just another rhetorical attack on atheism.

I would agree that there is a movement toward secularism and to some extent atheism. I argue that an "Atheist Movement" is a strawman because of what it represents to the OP. The OP would argue that atheists, by nature of their thoughts on the matter, are all allied with a few individuals. And that those few individuals speak for anyone who identifies as an atheist.

Indeed.
The OP also implies that all the groups Henry listed should all be considered one "movement," along with any/all atheists who aren't part of any of those groups. Doing so would have ignore all the differences between them (which are considerable), and focus solely on the one thing they may have in common (a lack of belief in claimed god-things).

That doesn't seem at all reasonable.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indeed.
> The OP also implies that all the groups Henry
> listed should all be considered one "movement,"
> along with any/all atheists who aren't part of any
> of those groups. Doing so would have ignore all
> the differences between them (which are
> considerable), and focus solely on the one thing
> they may have in common (a lack of belief in
> claimed god-things).
>
> That doesn't seem at all reasonable.

Thanks to both of you for for putting words in my mouth, even though they're total bullshit you just pulled out of your ass.
Obviously there was a New Atheist Movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Obviously it had its leaders, the Four Horsemen, (3 of whom are still alive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#The_"Four_Horsemen";

And the one token Horsewoman, (Since 4 old white guys mansplaining themselves seemed, well, patriarchal and sexist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#"Plus_one_horse-woman";

What happened to it. Did it die? If so, how? When?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously there was a New Atheist Movement.

"New Atheism is a term coined in 2006 by the agnostic journalist Gary Wolf to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century."

So some journalist makes up a new term, and to you that means "obviously there was such a movement!"

Really?

If those are your rules, then this should be valid:

I'm making up a new term: Koriwhore's Whores. It's a movement of people who cherry-pick quotes from famous people to make it look like they "believe" just like they do.

By your rules, obviously that's a real "movement."
When are your meetings?

I just love how atheists shit themselves whenever anything negative is posted about them, and then argue amongst themseves about what atheism means. It's the same comedy every time. As if anybody really cared.

They make TBM cultists look normal.

try looking in a mirror. You will surely shit yourself like smug arrogant fucktards always do.

You’re talking like a cultist there, Dave the atheist. Thanks for proving my point.

Just as neocons have their origins in reformed Trotskyites, so many of these ex-LDS are importing the worst aspects of Mormonism into their new lifestyle - the missionary zeal, the all.or nothing attitude, the idea "I know my group is true" etc.

A movement is sick if it has people like this as its idols ->

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think." - Richard Dawkins on Twitter.
6:52 AM - Jul 29, 2014

Too funny!

I think there might be a jesus movement, i see a cross or a sticker about him everywhere i go. But the f#cker can never seem to find me to repair me i have to go to specialists for that, go figure.

The whole thing is pretty toxic. Not only is it dominated by male bigots such as Richard Dawkins (a pedophilia and rape apologist) and aggressive types with social integration problems, but it is as much a threat to democracy and multiculturalism as the fundamentalist right.

The extreme end wants all religious people removed from public service and no doubt treated in hospitals for their "disease". Since many ethnic minorities rely on religion for their identity, militant atheism is effectively trying to undermine diversity in that area too.

Ya, I remember the Rebecca Watson episode and her subsequent treatment:

https://www.thenation.com/article/atheists-show-their-sexist-side/

But no, let's not discuss that; let's instead clutch our pearls and obfuscate about nomenclature again, shall we...

(koriwhore, you might get better traction for your larger points if you stopped using the word 'atheist' and instead used...oh hell, I dunno...was gonna say 'skeptic' but they --and of course there is a 'they' in the middle of all this, as Henry merely touched on above-- but they themselves and their projects seem so very far from the meaning of the word that I hesitate to give it to them.)

Heh. They even have their very own *Friend*, or is it more like *The New Era*?

https://www.skeptic.com/junior_skeptic/

Does the theist movement have a truth problem ?

I don't know. But I do know that the sexism movement has a theist endorsement.

Christian's on this board seem Bible challenged. I would suggest - get an audio version of your favorite Bible translation. Listen to it carefully and then carefully consider where the enduring issue of sexism continues to find support. You might want to start with Paul, move to Christ and then jump right into the Old Testament.

And ask yourselves: Why isn't rape in the 10 commandments?

I know, I know!!

Because back in the day, rape was just another way to say hello!

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And ask yourselves: Why isn't rape in the 10
> commandments?

If your moral code doesn't condemn rape and slavery it's disqualified as a moral code.

No, but the New Atheist do.