Let It Be: Three Cheers for Apatheism

[cbayer]

This is a relatively old article, but quite timely, as there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about this term. It has nothing to do with holding others with disdain. In fact, quite the opposite. It is about not caring at all what religious beliefs others may hold or not hold and taking them as individuals.

It also has nothing to do with not having an interest in the topic of religion or atheism. It is the position that no one knows and that positions about the existence or lack of existence of a god have nothing to stand on. This makes the influence of religion even more interesting, as it's tremendous power and emotional impact on both believers and non-believers may be rooted in the inability to actually know what is true.

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/apatheism_beyond_religion/

Jonathan Rauch
The Atlantic | May 2003

IT came to me recently in a blinding vision that I am an apatheist. Well, "blinding vision" may be an overstatement. "Wine-induced haze" might be more strictly accurate. This was after a couple of glasses of merlot, when someone asked me about my religion. "Atheist," I was about to say, but I stopped myself. "I used to call myself an atheist," I said, "and I still don't believe in God, but the larger truth is that it has been years since I really cared one way or another. I'm" -- that was when it hit me -- "an ... apatheist!"

That got a chuckle, but the point was serious. Apatheism -- a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's -- may or may not be something new in the world, but its modern flowering, particularly in ostensibly pious America, is worth getting excited about.

Apatheism concerns not what you believe but how. In that respect it differs from the standard concepts used to describe religious views and people. Atheism, for instance, is not at all like apatheism; the hot-blooded atheist cares as much about religion as does the evangelical Christian, but in the opposite direction. "Secularism" can refer to a simple absence of devoutness, but it more accurately refers to an ACLU-style disapproval of any profession of religion in public life -- a disapproval that seems puritanical and quaint to apatheists. Tolerance is a magnificent concept, John Locke's inestimable gift to all mankind; but it assumes, as Locke did, that everyone brims with religious passions that everyone else must work hard to put up with.

-snip-

"A world of pragmatic atheists," the philosopher Richard Rorty once wrote, "would be a better, happier world than our present one." Perhaps. But best of all would be a world generously leavened with apatheists: people who feel at ease with religion even if they are irreligious; people who may themselves be members of religious communities, but who are neither controlled by godly passions nor concerned about the (nonviolent, noncoercive) religious beliefs of others. In my lifetime America has taken great strides in this direction, and its example will be a source of strength, not weakness, in a world still beset by fanatical religiosity (al Qaeda) and tyrannical secularism (China).

more at link

[pinto]

1. +1 Good read.

Thanks for the snag.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Awesome! I sincerely think DU could use an Apatheism group.

I might have been mistaken all these years in believing that atheism was a benign position to hold, one that tolerated others' views provided they weren't pushed upon them or inordinately promoted.

From this read, it seems to me that Apatheism might be what best describes my POV and that of most of my close friends.

Thanks, cbayer!



I'm serious about a group if you think it might be a good idea.

[cbayer]

3. I think you may be on to something, and I am also serious.

A group for people that are interested in religion, particularly in how it intersects with politics and culture, but have no vested interest in pushing a particular religion, no religion and don't particularly care what others may or may not be.

I think that interfaith tried to achieve that, but it had a very difficult birth and has never quite recovered, imo.

Let's see what kind of response we get here, then maybe move forward with it.

Hope you are well. Heading up your way next week, but will be heading north out of SF to see my son and not south. Perhaps next time.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Would it be a safe haven?

How do you think the SOP might differ from the Interfaith group?

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

Admins would need to know before creating the group.

[cbayer]

8. I'm not even sure what a safe haven is, to be honest.

And I'm not ready to even think about an SOP.

I just like the idea of having a place where people can discuss religion without the never-ending and toxic theism/atheism battles.

Perhaps interfaith is what that should be. I've long struggled with the name, though, because by including the word "faith", it appears to exclude nonbelievers.

Perhaps it just needs to be renamed and take it from there.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. I'd be happy to support your new forum.

So if you go propose this group in Ask Skinner I'll put in a vote.

[rug]

4. That's an interesting idea.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Thanks. How do you think it would differ from the Interfaith Group?

Would it be a safe haven?

How do you think the SOP might differ from the Interfaith group?

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

Admins would need to know before creating the group.

Maybe we need to incorporate some of the Apatheism language to distinguish it from other DU groups.

[rug]

7. It shouldn't need to be but the Hosts determine if it's a safe haven or not.

Tolerance looks like a good fit with apatheism.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I think you're right.

A group is as safe as its hosts choose to keep it.

Need to read a bit more and think about whether or not it's worthwhile.

[edgineered]

16. As a safe haven much insight from others

As a safe haven much insight from others would be lost. Posts, articles, and opinions presented in the group that may strike a nerve in those outside the group. Without new thoughts and ideas from those occasional posters a safe haven becomes more of a club. Conversely, there are always a dozen or so out of 200k members here who will play a game of semantics simply because they can. It is that same small cadre that is unable to see that no others want to be act like them, disruption as the only goal.

Yes - creating the group is a good idea, a well defined SOP is essential.

[cbayer]

17. I fully agree about the slippery slope of a "safe haven" becoming a club.

I think the real power is in peer pressure. Disruption is not that hard to spot and not that hard to deal with.

[edgineered]

18. If peer pressure means

that anyone daring to speak their mind from fear of getting scorned by an online bully has succumb to it, then yes, I'll buy that definition.

[rug]

28. In theory safe havens do not stifle different viewpoints but they do enforce civility.

In theory.

[cbayer]

29. And in practice, some do exactly the opposite.

[rug]

33. Indeed.

[NYC_SKP]

49. I think you're right.

I don't see any difference in the functionality between a safe haven group and a regular group.

I know guns, as a topic, are not everybody's cup of tea but an example can be seen with RKBA and the Gun Control Reform Activism group.

One group is a safe haven and blocks any disagreeable point of view, regardless of how civil one might be, the other group has blocked only one member.

I don't think safe haven status has anything to do with it; it's a matter of SOP and hosting practices.

I would like to see open discussion from all points of view with zero tolerance for insults and call-outs, rallying, etc.

Blocking members should be a last resort, not a way to win an argument or maintain a clique or narrow point of view.

[cbayer]

58. Interesting idea that you might have a group with a zero tolerance policy for uncivil

behavior. I don't think it should be subjective though, but left in the hands of the jury system.

Similar to MIRT.

[NYC_SKP]

59. If the SOP requires that, say, callout (subtle or overt) are disallowed, then hosts can block.

I'm specifically troubled by callouts and stalking/swarming behaviors.

Now these can be challenged in the thread, and I'd rather the blocking function be used as a last resort.

I agree, management by hosts shouldn't be subjective but this can be avoided if the SOP is clearly written.

What's more, the jury system is meant to serve the function of objective regulator, but far too often fails in its function. If it worked uniformly and according to the TOS and community standards of DU, a lot of posts out there would be hidden.

For example, if anyone posted a poll that used pseudonyms to call out actual members of DU with whom they disagree, I would want that post locked. Demonstrating a repeated pattern of disruption without productive input would result in a block.

Just thinking out loud. I feel that nonbelievers with an interest in discussion free of intimidation should have a place to go.

And I'm still struggling with the question of how an Apatheistic group would differ from the Interfaith group, maybe we don't need another sub-group.

[cbayer]

60. I think if this were going to work, it is worth

considering the idea that the Interfaith group be renamed and the SOP be reworked.

Those who are actually going to use it could then really feel like they owned it.

[trotsky]

36. I would wholeheartedly support such a group.

Just like I supported the creation of the Interfaith group, which was created for the exact same real purpose - namely, to "eliminate" certain people from the discussion because they have negative opinions about religion.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I don't get it. What would you talk about in that group?

Apatheists don't give a crap about religion. They don't care enough to even deal with it. I've met apatheists out in the real world and they think that religion is so silly it isn't even worth considering.

But, let's say that your definition of it--a definition by someone that isn't even part of the group, but that's another discussion--is correct and you get your new group. And you can count me in as one of the 10 members that would support the new group, btw. What are you going to talk about? Isn't GD basically an apatheist group? There is no talk of religion in there. That group is apathetic toward religion.

But, again, count me in. I supported Interfaith (and actually got the atheist support to make that group a possibility) and I'll support this one. I'm sure it will be as lively of a discussion as there is in Interfaith.

[NYC_SKP]

40. Apatheists don't care which belief system, if any, another person embraces.

But this doesn't mean that they are disengaged from discussions about the history of religions, their differences and similarities, alternative systems of personal actualization, etc.

So, I think your characterization that GD is apatheistic may off.

Apatheism isn't the lack of respect for religion; it's the "acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity.

However, I'm not sure how it might be different from the Interfaith group.

Input on that question would be most helpful.

[cbayer]

41. If you read my comments and this article you would know

that being an apatheist doesn't mean that you are not interested in the topic of religion.

It means that you don't care if there is a god or not and you don't care what other individuals may or may not believe when it come to god.

IMO, it make the subject of religion even more interesting because you can look at it in the context of politics and culture with a much more objective eye and with less dog in the game.

As with theists and atheists, there are all kinds of people who may consider themselves apatheists. And as with theists and atheists, there are some who think religion is not worth spending any time discussing and some who seem to care a great deal about discussing it.

Why would you support a group that you think has no purpose or nothing to discuss? Perhaps for the same reason so many vocal atheists supported the formation of the interfaith group? The motives behind all that atheist support for the group were highly questionable and if this one comes about in the same way I would guess it will be just about as lively as Interfaith.

Actually, I think maybe we should rename interfaith and let those that are truly interested take ownership of it.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Let me just talk support for the group first. I'll do apatheism later.

I supported the Interfaith group because I was tired of the complaining. I was tired of hearing that the only reason for the lack of discussion was the evil atheists in here. People thought Interfaith was the answer. I didn't think it would result in the "lively discussion" others thought. But, as I said, I was tired of the complaining so I go the support needed for the creation of that group.

It seems to me like you are saying that because I wasn't 100% thinking it would be awesome that that is what caused Interfaith to not flourish. Or that it was because atheists supported it that it didn't work. I don't want to believe that is what you are saying, so please clarify. If Interfaith is a good idea, who supported it and why shouldn't have any impact on whether there is discussion in there. From my perspective, the lack of lively discussion in there is an indication that those complaining were wrong.

[cbayer]

44. Almost all of the support for that group came from a small group of the

people that you generally associate with. It was the formation of a ghetto, a place where the people that you were tired of hearing complain could go and live. It was not supported in good faith and was immediately attacked after it's formation. This became so bad that the AA hosts actually set up a whole new set of rules regarding this (which have mysteriously disappeared without any explanation).

It has continued to be a source of ridicule. It was set up to fail by people who had no genuine interest in seeing it succeed, with a few notable exceptions. No one from AA thought or hoped it would result in "lively discussion" and it has fulfilled it's mission as a failure, which continues to delight those that supported it.

I hope that clarifies it for you. Of course who supports it and why has tremendous impact on a groups future. To think otherwise is naive.

[trotsky]

45. The people you have designated as the enemy supported the creation of the Interfaith group.

Because as GM says, we grew tired of the complaining and wanted to give you what you wanted - a place where negative opinions about belief and religion aren't allowed.

Well, you got what you wanted. A group where you can talk ONLY warm fuzzies about religion. But it's not the center of religious discussion like you hoped it would be. And now you blame people who don't even post there for it not working? Unbelievable.

I wish you could get past whatever this is that causes you to portray all those who disagree with you as evil horrible "anti-theists" who want to forcibly eliminate religion.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Just because we thought it would fail did not make it fail.

This isn't something from The Secret. It's a ghetto as much as Religion is a ghetto and A/A is a ghetto. So I can't disagree with you there.

The reasoning behind the hosts setting up new rules that you state is incorrect. We set up the new rules because we wanted our safe haven respected. (You have indicated you don't know what a safe haven really is, which I find somewhat unrealistic given the number of years you were a mod. It was made pretty clear to us what that meant.) Realizing that, we knew that the safe haven of other groups needed to be respected, too. So we made the new rule. One might think that was actually a pretty solid move on our part, but that might not fit one's agenda. Why has that rule "mysteriously disappeared"? It has become increasing clear over the years that our safe haven isn't respected, so it seems like a silly rule. Additionally, I am of the thought that letting people vent there helps stop that venting happening elsewhere. Which, imho, is a good thing. And hosts of Interfaith have certainly allowed that venting to occur there, so they, too, must see the merit in it. (Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself as a host of A/A. If I remember something incorrectly, I will stand corrected if other hosts want to remind me of where I am off base.)

Whether or not those that don't contribute don't think it will succeed has little impact on it succeeding. Certainly if those posting there feel it will fail, you could argue that a self-fulfilling prophecy is occurring. But if you are seriously saying that the attitude of those that don't contribute there affects the outcome of it, you are crossing over into some levels of woo that have zero support.

[cbayer]

47. No, it's different.

It was basically established by a group that wanted to separate the "others". That's what makes it a ghetto.

Your new rules were all about what could be said about the Interfaith group and about members that participated there. It wasn't about having your safe haven protected. It was an attempt to keep it from becoming a place where people could attack other members and that group with impunity. It was initially successful, but in the end, even the hosts couldn't follow those rules, and I am guessing that is why they were take down.

I know what a safe haven was on DU2, but I'm not so sure on DU3. In some instances it seems to be a private club where anyone can call out, attack and mock other members without risking any response from those members. That would have never fit the definition on DU2.

How is your safe haven not respected? I do not believe for a minute you took down those rules because of that. It's not about "venting", it's about overt attacks on others. It's about OP's being written with the single goal of tearing down another member.

One can effect a group without participating in it. Mocking it regularly in other venues can contribute as well.

[Goblinmonger]

51. We didn't "establish" the group

We gave the needed number of star members to make it happen. I don't know who brought the petition to Skinner, but I would guarantee it wasn't an atheist. So we didn't "establish" it, we made it possible.

I was very clear and honest with you about why we created the rules. If you aren't going to believe me in this discussion, then there probably isn't much point in it. If you don't understand something or have some evidence that is contrary to what I'm saying, I'll be happy to discuss it, but if you are just going to go with what you think and dismiss what I am telling you did happen as an A/A host, then, again, there isn't much point to the discussion. We are trying to rewrite somethings given what our memebers ahve indicated but since the 3 of us have lives outside DU, that isn't a quick process.

The problem with DU3, as a whole, is that it is dependent on juries. Even in a safe haven, the host role is pretty limited. We in A/A have taken the option to try and create an environment that those who subscribe to our group want to have. We protect it from violations of the SOP. We ask semi-frequently if people want something different from us and adjust accordingly. We are not their parents. We are not there to make them comment a specific way. As Skinner has said somewhat repeatedly about DU3, when you post you takes your chances. He likes the jury system and DU3 reflects that system. There is a lot a like. There are something I don't. But it isn't my rodeo.

[cbayer]

61. If you were to be really honest about this, you would know

that it was set up as something of a joke from the beginning. Those who "supported" it, really didn't support it at all. Yeah, you "made it possible". Isn't that nice.

If you happen to have retained a copy of those "rules", you might want to review them. It was all about how there were to be prohibitions about calling out and attacking other members and attacking the Interfaith group in particular. It was put in place because of what the members who frequented AA were doing. It didn't address keeping AA "safe" at all. Problem is that it wasn't enforced and there was (is) even some host violations of it. It was clearly unworkable and was removed without comment.

I like DU3 and would never advocating going back to the moderator system. The biggest problem I see is that it gives little people too much power when it comes to groups and some people let that go to their head. It allows "safe havens" to become private little clubs where people can gather to attack other members in ways that outsiders wouldn't recognize as CS violations, and there is no recourse for those effected by that. I've got no problem with the jury system at all.

Of course everyone in your group loves your group and the way it is run. Why in the world would you think anything else? Anyone who doesn't is run out of there in a heartbeat. Do you realize that the majority of people you have banned actually fit the criteria for your group? They just don't fit the unspoken criteria. They just aren't the right kind of A/A's.

[trotsky]

62. And were you to be honest about this, you would know

that each individual on the banned list from A&A was given warnings about disruptive activity. Unlike in Interfaith, were people were banned simply because their "presence" was enough to "bait" Interfaithers into attacking them!! LOL

Take a look at how many of the people banned from A&A are PPRed now - theist homphobes like LARED and humblebum. Good riddance to them! Your bitterness over getting banned for your quote-mining and attacks is really sad. You are welcome anytime you want to come back, just write a note apologizing to the hosts for your behavior and promise it won't happen again. Done.

[Goblinmonger]

63. I am being honest and, frankly, your repeated claims I'm not are tiresome.

I've made it clear that those of use who supported it, as I understood it, didn't think it would work. That doesn't mean we didn't support it. It was nice of us to make it possible. That nothing materialized from it isn't our fault. For you to argue that it is odd at best.

It wasn't removed without comment. We did a thread about what people wanted for rules. We are working on changing them. Hopefully I get around to the draft soon so that Evolve and Julie can look at it.

It seems odd that you complain about what is going on in A/A and then say you like DU3 because it stops safe havens from being bad. Hopefully you can see the tension in those two claims without me having to point it out.

A good portion of the people we have banned have also been PPRd because they were fucking tools. I'd say we do a pretty good job of sniffing them out. And those that are atheists the are banned were not just knee jerk banned. But you know all this. They were given time to stop doing what they were doing. And most of them just doubled down and ran to Religion to rehash it all again. I feel badly about NONE of the bans in A/A.

[cbayer]

64. Sorry to tire you, but we see this so differently that it

is hard to really make sense of it.

If you support something that you don't believe will work, what could be the motivation for supporting it? It wasn't nice of you to make it possible at all. You may have thought it was "nice", but it wasn't. It was a set-up, and done in bad faith.

Whether that is the reason that the room has not done well is not clear, but the continued use of it's lack of activity as a weapon is what is really tiresome. There were clear attempts by those who "supported" it to undermine it almost immediately. That is why the AA host put up new rules.

I don't think DU3 stops "safe havens" from being bad. I think it provides for something different than what they were. I take issue with the hosting system and the lack of recourse if an individual is being systematically abused by a group, but that is outside the purview of the juries.

A good portion of the people you have banned were banned because you didn't like the kind of atheists or agnostics they were. They challenged the status quo. I was knee jerk banned and given no time at all. You want to review what went down there? Take a look at my complete posting history in that group - every single one of them, then tell me I was a fucking tool. Tell me to my face.

[Goblinmonger]

65. That's not why we put up the rules.

You keep making statements about why the A/A hosts did something like I wasn't one. I know why we did what we did. I've been telling you the reasons rather repeatedly here.

I didn't say you were a fucking tool. I said those that are on the list that have been PPRd were tools. I dare you to tell me differently.

As to the non-PPRd members, it wasn't because they challenged the status quo. It is because they started discussions in there that the safe haven was set up to avoid. When that was pointed out to them, they either continued or ran here to bring the discussion to this forum. There have been instances where people have posted things and we have contacted that person pointing out the problem. They realized what we were telling them, stopped the behavior, and they continue to be in A/A. Contrary to popular opinion of some in here, we aren't just an anarchy for telling theists how stupid they are.

You were banned because you were quote mining a safe haven. You have never indicated remorse for that nor have you indicated you would stop it. If either of those are now true, you can PM one of the hosts and ask to be reinstated indicating that you won't do that further.

[cbayer]

66. So, explain to me how those particular rules helped keep the group "safe".

I would love to hear the rationale for that.

I posted a link to a post by a well-known repeat troll who has disrupted the AA and religion group over and over and over again. It was used as an excuse to ban me. I have no remorse for that. People link to other threads all the time and very, very frequently in your group. I would link to a troll again if I thought there was an important point I could make with it. I have absolutely no interest in being "reinstated" and wouldn't participate in that group if you paid me money. I didn't participate in it previously except by accident (2), to offer support to another member (2) and to ask that a now banned member stop calling me out (8). That's it, a grand total of 12 completely non-disruptive posts.

If you can whitewash that, I am sure you can whitewash all the others as well.

[Goblinmonger]

70. We didn't want people violating our safe haven

so we felt it was a good rule to not violate other safe havens. Especially the new one that would cause some consternation. So we put the rule into effect hoping that our actions would show how we wanted to be treated.

You quote mined. And you quote mined at a really bad time. A time when we were trying to show what we thought safe havens should be. We lost that fight, ultimately, on DU3, but we tried. And if someone in our group quote mines a safe haven, I will not complain one iota about a block of that person from the safe haven. Myself included.

Truth be told, yours is the ban I would be most likely to vote to lift all things being equal. Of course your statement changes that, but yours was the "least offensive" of the group.

[cbayer]

73. Ok, that makes sense.

People were behaving in a way in your group that you would not want to see in other groups that targeted yours.

"Quote mining" is a highly subjective thing that can be used when one wants to find a reason to get rid of someone, even though talking about other people's posts and linking to them goes on all the time. I guess it's ok if you do it, but it's a great reason to sanction someone if they do it in a way you don't like. The guy was a troll. I have done you all a favor on multiple occasions by pointing him out to you. I'm not aware of any group that would block someone on such a flimsy reason as "quote mining". It's a fraud.

I was blocked as part of a vendetta and not for any legitimate reason. It set a tone and a trend that has never changed.

[Goblinmonger]

75. Yeah. Other than that's not what i said.

I don't need dime store psychology from you.

Do you really think your attitudes and actions towards atheists here has been awesome? And please spare me sone version of "they asked for it. " YOUR actions. You ok with everything you've done?

[cbayer]

77. I have issues with some individuals.

That they are atheists is completely irrelevant to me.

I've not always been kind and I have been outright ugly to some who did not deserve it because I made assumptions about them that were not true.

But I don't have any regrets because I have generally been able to reconcile with those that I have misjudged.

I have chosen to engage with you because I think you are sincere and honest at your core, and I am glad to have done that.

I have no "attitude" towards atheists. I have very good relationships with a lot to atheists both in real life and on the internet. I am married to an atheist and have atheist children. I am not a believer. The issue with me has nothing to do with atheism.

[trotsky]

79. No, cbayer, you don't get to rewrite history.

What set the tone and the trend was your father. Back when he landed on DU and immediately preached that "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

Numerous non-believers objected to that remark. We tried and tried to explain why it was wrong to say, but got zero traction with him. And you and your friends, rather than politely taking him aside and perhaps just asking him to retract and apologize for the insensitive remark, doubled down and demonized those who were objecting.

That was the catalyst event which really changed the dynamics here and made things suck.

And now, the hated atheists (the ones you are now saying are not "sincere and honest" - way to keep raising that tone!) are to blame for everything that's wrong - even the horrible behavior exhibited by you and your friends, because you're just reacting to how evil and terrible we are.

Weak, weak sauce.

[rug]

67. He won't. But there will be a thread in A&A about it.

The ration in there of DU gossip to any actual post on atheism is about 6 to 1.

[Goblinmonger]

71. I'm flattered you care so much to do a study.

I'd love to see your raw data for your conclusions.

[rug]

72. Feel free to do your own.

I wouldn't want you get all upset over quote-mining.

[Goblinmonger]

74. You're already blocked, soooooo

And it's cute you think that us the only reason you were blocked.

But you gave some specific numbers, so I'm hoping you didn't pull those numbers out of your ass.

[rug]

76. Oh, I know exactly why. And it's definitely not your revisionist version.

As I recall, one of your esteemed members posted some of your usual esteemed flamebait in Religion and was boasting about it in your little safe haven. I'm sure you'll recall the mocking and ridicule with which it was done. When I confronted him about it, Evolve asked me summarily if I was an atheist. Alas, I had no papers to produce.

The thread went on in the Hosts Forum for a week. At one point your friend laconicsax (remember him, where has he been? Oh, here he is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=118400&sub=trans Nice of you to keep his posts pinned in your group) stated one reason for the block was that A&A members ojected to my "presence" in their safe haven.

So monger, go on and continue the fiction about what goes in the "safe haven" you host. Explain the yachting and floor covering references. Explain the posts about trashing the Religion Group and its members. Explain the attacks on a member's father. Go on. Or continue to deny the reality of that little corner of the internet that you call home.

I didn't pull it "out of my ass", as you said, but there are definitely assholes involved.

[skepticscott]

80. We supported it because YOU

wanted it, and because YOU thought it would work. You're welcome, btw.

When are you going to start blaming the failure of Interfaith on the people who said they wanted to make something out of it, but then were too lazy to put in the time and effort to post there? None of the evil, scheming atheists ever prevented them, and despite all of your distortions of truth, history and logic, you know that perfectly well, c.

[Rob H.]

53. "It was basically established by a group that wanted to separate the "others"."

It was supported by a group of people other than believers because the believers who said they wanted a safe haven for discussion wouldn't step up and see to it that it got created. It was actually Goblinmonger who offered to find 10 star members to support its creation. (MADem, who I don't think is a non-believer, was a big booster, too, and he's a host in Interfatih so maybe he can provide some further insight on why it's had a hard time gaining traction.) That people posted there briefly and the group got less and less traffic shortly thereafter is the fault of the people who claimed they wanted a safe haven of their own and then abandoned it, simple as that.

[trotsky]

55. A&A is mocked, ridiculed, criticized, and attacked in this very group.

Doesn't seem to affect participation there.

[rug]

68. That's interesting. There are A&A posts mocking and ridiculing this Group daily.

Doesn't seem to be much other participation there.

No, wait. Cartoons. But even that has slacked off.

[Curmudgeoness]

52. Oh, please.

I have no horse in this race, since I didn't get involved in setting up Interfaith, nor do I ever go there. But there is only one reason that it is a failure, and that is because no one seems interested in posting there. Why? Maybe it is because it isn't any fun to just sing Kumbaya all day. It is the controversy that brings all sides to this group instead of the Interfaith group. Just admit it.

If you want Interfaith to work, and you really want a place without controversy, I would suggest that you put some work into it. Go there. Post there. Have lively discussion. You have to put effort into anything to make it work, and the only person I can see who is putting any effort into Interfaith is HMSJustin.

I really do not know what the reasons for setting up the Interfaith group were, and it really doesn't matter. It looks bad for you to complain that it was a ghetto set up to house all the believers, or whatever you are suggesting....and using the term "ghetto" in relationship to religious "persecution" is hitting rather low, after seeing what happened in Warsaw. It looks like someone bought you a house, and you are complaining because it doesn't have gold toilet seats.

[skepticscott]

78. What utter nonsense

Atheists formed that room as a “ghetto” to keep you and your cohorts isolated? Seriously? It was you and your cohorts who complained constantly that you didn’t have a place to discuss the things you wanted to discuss, in the way you wanted to discuss them, without the mean ol’ atheists messing things up. YOU were the ones who clamored for Interfaith, not us, and now you’re complaining that the same mean ol’ atheists had some evil plot in mind when they offered support?

For those interested in reality instead of cbayer’s historical revisionism, here are the opening threads from Interfaith:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12647

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12641

Does any of this sound like people being forced to do this against their will? Is there any hint of a diabolical atheist scheme?

I’m sure that if the same people had opposed the formation of that room, you’d still be griping about that, too. What exactly would you have preferred we do?

As far as it being a “ghetto”, that’s laughable, not to mention a rather sad and inappropriate example of victimology. No one is forced to post there and no one is restricted to only posting there. You and your cohorts are still free to post anything you want , anywhere on DU (well, except for those who have been banned for violating safe havens). As far as the fact that Interfaith has become a ghost town, with only one resident, it’s equally ludicrous to blame that on your imagined atheist tormentors. You and your cohorts were completely, utterly free from Day 1 of Interfaith to make ANYTHING of that room that you wanted, and you still are. To say that the people who originally supported the room have ANYTHING to do with what you made of it is not only naïve, it’s bollocks. I defy you to show any influence those people had once the room was launched. No one has EVER stopped you from having the kind of deep, meaningful discussions you and your cohorts claimed to want. No one could, even if they cared enough to try. If you’re annoyed that some of us were wiser than you about the likely fate of that room, and if you’re annoyed that AA is able to create livelier and more engaging discussion on a regular basis, too bad. But stop pointing the finger for the state of Interfaith at anyone but yourself and your little group, and put your money where your mouth is. Blaming others for your own failure is the refuge of the lazy.

[Lordquinton]

81. comparing atheists to Nazis again?

Stay classy mrs. Bayer

[cbayer]

82. You think ghettos are all about nazis?

Stay uneducated Master quinton.

[Goblinmonger]

48. The definition everyone seems to work with

is in line with Wikipedia's definition:

acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity.

They just don't care. Or, in the words of the Friendly Atheist, "they just don't give a shit."

You can check out the apatheist sub-Reddit for more of the same.

And just to throw a real wrench in your definition of this term which I don't believe means what you think it means, here's your hero Bill Maher describing why he's an apatheist (his attitude, by the way, is completely in line with those apatheists I know in real life and which tell me you aren't understanding what the term means).

[cbayer]

56. I can agree with that.

I think an apatheist does not care about a belief in god.

But that doesn't mean that they are not interested in the topic of religion. That might be an apathreligionist, I guess.

I am very interested in the topi of religion, particularly as it pertains to local, national and international politics. But I couldn't care less about one's belief or lack of belief in god or whether there is or isn't a god. I'm an advocate for separation of church and state, and also for freedom of religion.

Do you think Bill Maher has no interest in religion? Really? He made a movie that was called Religulous, for goodness sake. While I sometimes disagree with Maher on some topics, I share his definition (and he shares mine).

[alterfurz]

10. Non-practicing pantheist here...

...many levels of consciousness, many gods: Each blind man holding onto a different part of the elephant. Oh sure, on good days I might still muster up a little dishwater agnosticism, but atheism remains far too problematic--as Woody put it, there's no way you can prove God doesn't exist: you just have to take it on faith.

The gods hear and answer all prayers. The answer to the common petition to suspend just this once the Law of Cause and Consequence is customarily no. (Trust in Allah, but always tie your camel. Pray to Neptune, but row away from the rocks.) Sometimes when the gods want to punish us, they give us what we ask for, and to reward us, they don't. General guideline: If you don't pray when the sun shines, don't pray when it rains. Corollary: "If the only prayer you say in your life is thank you, that would suffice." -- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-c. 1328). Personally, I'm counting on that.

Final thoughts:

You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott, Traveling Mercies (Pantheon, 1999)

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg

[cbayer]

13. I often use the blind men and the elephant analogy and think

it is particularly apt when it comes to beliefs in a deity.

I also agree that people have a strong tendency to create their gods to be just like them.

[Maedhros]

57. RE: "there's no way you can prove God doesn't exist: you just have to take it on faith. "

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38828-if-i-were-to-suggest-that-between-the-earth-and

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

― Bertrand Russell

[Cartoonist]

11. The key word is apathy

Who cares what people who don't care think?

[cbayer]

12. There are two key words - apathy and theism.

It is not caring whether there is a god or not and not caring if others believe there is a god or not. It doesn't mean not caring about religion as a topic.

If you don't care about the environment, I might care a great deal about that, so your last sentence doesn't apply to me.

[NYC_SKP]

50. It's about apathy toward others' beliefs, not apathy toward belief systems.

That's an important distinction.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity, so it applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[1]

Some apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change.[2] This view is sometimes called apadeism (from "apatheism to deism&quot for precision, and it is different from apatheism proper in that it can easily combine with or even serve as a basis for an active anti-religious position.

Thus, it's not that apatheists aren't interested in world religions, their impact on societies, their history, etc., but more that we aren't particularly interested in promoting one, or none, over others' choices.

It seems to me to be the most inclusive and progressive stance to maintain, one that takes all comers provided they aren't hateful or defensive, which would kind of be the opposite of apatheism.

[MellowDem]

14. The author is an atheist still...

Whether one cares or not about the existence of God is a separate question from belief, and from knowledge as well. The term atheist has been demonized and stigmatized by theists and even some atheists that uphold religious privilege for many years, and atheism is still a minority by far in the US, so many people try to find ways to not identify with the label to avoid controversy and to not lose benefits in a theistic society.

Agnosticism and apatheism are not separate from atheism, but people pretend they are to avoid the label. Doing so is an appeasement to the theistic majority, to comfort them and reaffirm their privilege. Pretending you're something you're not to spare the feelings of a majority.

Religious privilege is so prevalent and ingrained in society that many atheists defend and uphold it. Many atheists even regurgitate the same falsehoods and demonization that theism has created.

The author seems to be one of those atheists. I think his last couple sentences are telling. He wants a world where people are comfortable with religious privilege instead of challenging it, and he thinks people who identify as religious to soak up the privileges associated (he uses Ronald Reagan as an example) while not actually believing what they identify with are to be praised. That's seriously messed up, and shows how powerful religious privilege is.

[beam me up scottie]

20. "Pretending you're something you're not to spare the feelings of a majority."

Or pretending you're something you're not so people will like you and not associate you with those evil atheists.

Cowardly.

If you don't believe in gods you're an atheist. Why is that so terrible?

[NYC_SKP]

21. One can be religious and not believe in god or gods.

And, one can be atheistic and still believe in higher power(s).

Religion:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

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

Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[11] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.[12] Some ancient and modern religions are referred to as atheistic, as they either have no concepts of deities or deny a creator deity, yet still revere other god-like entities.

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

Apatheism:

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity, so it applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[1]

Some apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change.[2] This view is sometimes called apadeism (from "apatheism to deism&quot for precision, and it is different from apatheism proper in that it can easily combine with or even serve as a basis for an active anti-religious position.

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

From these descriptions, Apatheism seems to be, by far, the most tolerant and inclusive and, consequently, progressive.

[beam me up scottie]

22. None of your wiki dial a definitions proves atheism is anything other than non belief in gods.

Religious belief or the lack of it has NOTHING to do with tolerance, inclusiveness, or progressive ideology.

Try again.

[NYC_SKP]

23. I'm responding to your claim: "If you don't believe in gods you're an atheist."

Clearly, atheists can't even agree on the meaning of the term, but the more common definitions available are pretty clear that non-belief in Gods does not necessarily make one an atheist.

One might not believe in gods and still be a member of a Unitarian Universalist group or any number of other organized or disorganized or nontraditional orders.

Civil behavior is a good indicator of being inclusive and tolerant and progressive.

This is why I think the DU community might benefit from having an inclusive and civil Apatheism group.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Do tell. What, in your expert opinion, does non-belief in gods make one?

Oh dear! I forgot to use a capital 'G' in Gods. That must mean I'm intolerant.



And I don't care enough to care about an Apatheism group where one would care enough to discuss how much they don't care about religion.

Or something.


If you are concerned about definitions and happen to find yourself on wikipedia you should look up the word 'hypocrite'.

Or you could just skip the lectures since a quick search of your posts shows you wouldn't know civility if it bit you on your apathetic ass.

(hint: just because you deleted your posts in the A/A group doesn't mean they never existed. The responses are a good indication that you don't play well with others)

[NYC_SKP]

27. Agnostic is one choice.

I deleted my posts because I was tired reading silly replies that were coming from what seem to be a few nasty people with nothing better to do.

I'm truly sorry for all the hurt that has to have happened to create so much bile in these folks' lives.

I know from my line of work that these behaviors are really an expression of feelings of fear and pain and helplessness. I wish I could help but I only have hugs.



PS:

On second thought, there's more I can do than give hugs. Many a member has sent a PM for advice for friends and family dear to them in addressing forms of treatment for depression, substance abuse, and other ailments and they know that I can be helpful. None of the programs or resources are theistic, though some have a background in Eastern philosophy.

If you know of anyone feeling particularly sad or hopeless, please don't hesitate contacting me.

Best regards,

NYC_SKP

[beam me up scottie]

30. And there it is.

If you know of anyone feeling particularly sad or hopeless, please don't hesitate contacting me.

Would a civil, tolerant, progressive person infer that members of a sub-group on DU were emotionally unstable and in need of professional help?



Enjoy your new group. If the kind of people who would post something like you just did are welcome, I wouldn't fit in.

Because I would never stoop that low.

[NYC_SKP]

31. Be well. Best wishes.

The offer stands, and, more often than not, advice has been sought for loved ones, not for DU members.

My friends here know of my background working with incarcerated youth with manifest challenges including being victims of molestation, beatings, and even rape.

You know you have a sad group of age 14-18 children when on one day three are in tears simultaneously during class, one of whom suffers from incontinence of his bowels.

In respect of him, I won't share publicly the personal history that this boy bears that lead to such lack of control of his bodily functions.

Many of us here struggle with life's challenges and sometimes that comes out as expressions of belligerence and anger.

Depression and despair know no theistic or gender or other demographic bounds, I think you know that.

Finally, there is no new group, simply a discussion about a forming a new one.

If one is formed, I imagine membership would be open and voluntary, consistent with the Apatheistic point of view.

Good night to you.

[trotsky]

37. Hey guess what, NYC_SKP?

You helped create some of that bile. Way to go!

[Warren Stupidity]

35. The link you provided disputes your claim.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

.

Non belief in gods is the meaning of atheism.

Oh and feel free to start your apatheist group. It should go as well as the dead zone known as the interfaith group.

[rhett o rick]

15. I think Bertram Russell said that he called himself an agnostic when addressing philosophers and

and atheist when addressing common people. He wouldn't tell philosophers he was an atheist because he thought he would be asked to prove there was no God. I don't believe an atheist has to prove there is no God but can claim there is no God until proven otherwise.

I don't like to call myself agnostic because it sounds wishy-washy and indefinite to me. And I don't like the term atheist because I don't deny there is a God I just don't know what God is. I certainly do not believe in the "Christian God", or Jewish or Muslim, etc. But I do not discount the Eastern general idea of God (like the Buddhists) and I agree with Einstein's idea of God. Secular humanist wouldn't be bad except it's such a mouthful and sounds a bit perverted. No offense intended.

But I have had a vision* and have seen the light. I have decided to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for no other reasons than I think it's fun and it shows the proper disrespect for theism. Although I will never be able to look at meatballs the same.

*possibly heartburn.

[cbayer]

42. I like your take on this and think you are representative of a significant number of others.

Whether they join the FSM church or not is another question.

[freshwest]

19. Oops! I thought I was a secularist. By that definition, I'm not. Apatheist is what I am.

And I don't give a rat's ass who wants to convince me to take sides. On that, I am not neutral. Psychologists can figure out the mental architecture of all of them. It's not that I don't care about many things: I just don't care about brands.

And it has to do with my upbringing, admittedly. It was like 'So, do you like blueberry muffins or do you like strawberry ice cream? How about vanilla or chocolate? Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, atheist, Unitarian, Lutheran, Judaism, Islam or none of the above? Go for it, but follow the Golden Rule.'

IMO, it's a choice, a reality or storyline that people use to feel safe in or else gives them poetic verbage, social relationships or a sense of identity. That last is the most pressing of all in human life, because we need a connection to others to survive. What strange outcomes that can create, good or bad for us.

Some people get exercised about their sports team, a television show or movie, media constructions, their school, their job. They need someone to sing the same song back to them to feel they're alive or doing the right thing with their time on Earth. Some get very strong about family, country, city or state, etc. The last ones are generally involuntary and not a matter of choice.

After that, it's all up to the individual. And as long as they don't mess with othe rights of others, fine. But that's the line. Even then, they might change their mind and be something else tomorrow. Those are human characteristics and they can exist in all of the listed groups, or other lists not written here.

I think even the worst of fanatics are seeking some kind of truth to explain their time on Earth. They do want that. Of course, there are those who are preying on them, which results in crappy stuff.

Okay, apatheist. Yup.

[NYC_SKP]

24. You're a lover, you're loving and understanding and tolerant.

You might just be an apatheist!

[cbayer]

25. And this is why I so admire you, freshwest.

"It's all up to the individual and as long as they don't mess with the rights of other, fine."

That is the bottom line.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Apatheists exhibit the lowest levels of hypertension of all "ists".

They are the Honey Badgers of isms.

Seriously, I used to think that "Live and Let Live" was the mark of a good Atheist/Agnostic, but I'm learning that at least some among them are as nasty as the nastiest fundamental (insert religious affiliation here).

So, time for a new, carefree, be what you wanna be and love the one your with" group.

[cbayer]

34. And I love me some Honey Badgers.

[trotsky]

38. I did not know that 11 years was "relatively old."

Some folks have gotten snipped at because they posted something a couple of weeks or months old in here. Thanks for setting the expectation that anything within at least the last 11 years is OK to post. Especially if it's done with the intention of further marginalizing and demonizing the people you don't like, right?

[Fumesucker]

69. Well I guess if atheists have to exist then it's good that they don't care about religious privilege

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Relgious groups force me to care.

Every time they lobby, band together to vote, etc, to impose their religious beliefs on me, they force me to care.

I look forward to a day when I CAN be an apatheist. That sounds nice. Right now, to be one, means 'victim'.