SHAME on the men in R/Atheism!

[rug]

Posted by Living Life Without a Net ⋅ December 31, 2011

If you’ve been on vacation, you may not have noticed the firestorm erupting over an incident on Reddit’s atheism subgroup. If you’re not the internet junkie type, Reddit is a social news site where members link to stories in particular subject groups. R/atheism is the site’s atheist subgroup, with over 350,000 members.

A few days ago, a fifteen year old girl posted a picture of herself with a book by Carl Sagan. It was titled “What my super religious mother got me for Christmas.” (LINK) If you’re like me, you look at the picture and think, “How awesome is that! A mom being openminded and loving towards her teenage daughter!” Until I read the comments, I would have thought that’s what most people’s reaction would be.

I’m sorry to say I placed far too much faith in humanity. I’m still having trouble coming to grips with some of the things redditors said to her, and still grasping at straws trying to come up with an explanation for it all:

•Brace yourself. The compliments are coming.
•Bracin’ mah anus
•She is fifteen years old. ABORT THE MISSION. ABORT THE MISSION.
•The jeans I’m wearing are older then her. But then again, they’re full of holes.
•Aaaaaaand so is she…

By the way, the picture at the upper left of this page? That’s the picture. If we were talking about a girl wearing a skimpy bikini, posing seductively, I could understand why men would think sexual responses were in order. But there’s nothing remotely sexual about the picture, except for the fact that it’s a girl. And that screams misogyny.

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/shame-on-the-men-in-ratheism/

Pigs are pigs regardless of belief or disbelief. The bigger the group the more the pigs.

[Goblinmonger]

1. I'm not on R/Atheism, and I agree with you, but

I don't think it is ALL men on R/Atheism.

[rug]

4. No it isn't.

But it only takes a few assholes to stink up a place.

BTW, Happy New Year to you and yours.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I absolutely agree.

As a high school teacher, this hits pretty close to home because I have a good grasp on what those responses are going to do to that girl's state of mind.

Happy New Year to you, too.

[seabeyond]

2. i was just told by a poster all women are whores. then he went on in another post, our roles in the

kitchen, at the table and once again a whore in the bedroom. this is talking to all women.

how is that kosher. yet there it sits. all women are whores. how welcome are women? here on du.

[laconicsax]

3. That's a TOS violation.

That poster should be banned.

[seabeyond]

6. jury came back 3/3 to even hide the crap. nt

[laconicsax]

8. Of course they did.

The jury system works, except where women and minorities are concerned.

[Odin2005]

28. I can't believe that misogynist sh--head is getting away with that crap!!!

[laconicsax]

30. The line is that the system works because he got MIRTed.

No matter that at least 3 juries voted to keep his misogynist bullshit, frequently because misogyny is 'just another opinion.'

[Goblinmonger]

10. PM one of the forum hosts

and let them run it up the flagpole. Juries aren't the last step.

[seabeyond]

14. i didnt know my options.

the whole thread is disgusting. i dont see how you can go beyond a single post, when the reality is all of his posts. thanks.

[cbayer]

5. Did you alert on that? Did a jury let it stand?

[seabeyond]

7. jury let it stand. edited, jury reply

EASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

sexist. troll. creep.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:49 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I feel kind of borderline about this one. I'd rather see him just straight-out banned than have his post "hidden" but still available. It is disruptive, though, so I'll vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: After reading the whole discussion: though the poster could have worded it differently, they were directly referencing sex workers. It borderlines being inappropriate however I think Dan Savage would be ok with what the poster said. This is touchy, but overall I don't feel like it was ignorant nor hateful
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Sexist and generally inappropriate.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: "calling all women whores is a bit beyond" - a bit? This is DU. We're better than that!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Discussion is awkward but there is nothing wrong with this post. Other posts in the thread are certainly suspect but this one is not over the edge. It merely states a position on the usage of a word some consider sensitive.

Thank you.

[cbayer]

11. Hmmm.... Can you link to the post in question?

[seabeyond]

13. he starts here, saying go out to dinner and give it up.... being bought and

goes to his next post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296340#post53

[Goblinmonger]

15. I kind of hesitate to do this

but I don't know that I would have voted to hide that, either.

To me, he seems to be trying to point out that there are sex workers who are able to choose that job on their own free will and do it willingly. He doesn't say all women are whores; he doesn't say that there isn't a sex trade; he doesn't say there aren't some women that find themselves in that job against their will through other means than slavery; and he doesn't even say he approves of the job of the actions described in the OP. He certainly runs on the edge of saying those things, but I don't think they are there. I also think there are worse posts in that thread.

[seabeyond]

16. he says, if a woman goes out on a date and has sex, she is doing the same as a sex worker. really?

what does that make most all women that have experienced that? a whore. he also says a womans place in kitchen is a cook, in dining room a lady, in a bedroom a whore.

that is not offensive to women?

[Goblinmonger]

24. I don't think he said that.

He said that there are women that go out on a date to get things realizing they are going to have to have sex for what they get and that they do it willingly. That is markedly different than saying that EVERY woman who goes on a date and has sex is the same as a sex worker. Certainly you would agree that there are women like the former example.

[laconicsax]

25. It's the implication of what he said.

He's saying that if a man buys you dinner and you have sex later, you're being paid for sex.

That implies that the only women who aren't whores pay for everything in their relationships and don't accept gifts--once you accept anything that cost money from a sexual partner, you're a whore.

[cbayer]

33. Exactly. And I am glad that the MIR team got rid of him

[LeftishBrit]

48. +1

[RainDog]

101. that person has been banned

guys who think that going on a date is the equivalent of paying a prostitute are, unfortunately, common online. don't know about irl.

when a female reciprocates by buying dinner for the male... that makes her also unworthy or else why would she not be whoring herself for a meal seems to be the reflexive opposite of that pov.

I sort of get the feeling that those guys don't have very many dates based upon their desirability as humans. maybe they think they're so worthless no woman would want to be with them unless that woman is paid to do so.

in any case.. the pig is gone.

[seabeyond]

102. ya. but there are guys that think he wasnt saying what he was. so it goes on. the funny

i have paid for a man at times for different reasons. so i want to know

does that make him a whore?

thanks. i hear ya.

[RainDog]

103. it seems there are a lot of misunderstandings on DU

I have read threads in which people talk about something and others respond to something else entirely.

I'm sure I've been guilty of the same myself but I hope I can step back and re-read.

however, it seems clear to me to talk about dating as paying for a whore is way over the line in terms of misogyny.

[laconicsax]

104. Unfortunately, no juries thought it was way over the line.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised by that.

[Eliminator]

23. Me neither

A few people in this and that thread need to take a deep breath and cool off. I'm surprised THEIR posts weren't hidden.

[cbayer]

17. I took it the the MIR team, but this may be a TOS violation that admin needs to look at.

Thanks for the link.

[seabeyond]

18. i dont get it cbayer.

i dont get why men think it is not offensive to be called a whore for having a date and sex with a man. why they dont get that it is saying the woman "services" the man, if she dares to choose to have sex.

i think i need to go far far away, lol. i never saw myself in this manner.

thanks. should i self delete all these posts.

[cbayer]

19. This was probably better discussed in the help & meta forum, but, unless members

here object, I would think it is ok to stay.

At any rate, I have moved it along and will ask admin to take a look.

[seabeyond]

32. i am sorry i took up so much of this thread with this, to all in this forum.

thank you

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. Most of us DO think it's offensive

That poster should be banned ASAP, with prejudice.

[seabeyond]

31. good to hear. thank you.

he was banned

i am sorry i took up so much of this thread with this.

[cbayer]

34. No apologies needed.

There are mechanisms in place to do things that juries can't (or won't) do. You brought up a problem that needed attention, it was addressed and solved.

You have nothing to apologize about, imo.

[laconicsax]

26. And while more juries voted to keep his misogyny, he's been banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279550&sub=trans

[cleanhippie]

41. Wait. It looks as if YOU said he said all women are whores, but he DID NOT say that.

He says: "no it seems you dont understand that there are people who enjoy sex and getting paid. Not everyone in the trade is forced into it, or find it repulsive. No more so than some feel hooking up and expecting dinner or a movie then a jump. In the end they are both pay to lay."

Then YOU say: "ah... you are one of those that ALL women are whores, one way or another. talk enough, and we hear the same thing every. single. time. tell yourself big boy, the woman giving 20 bjs a night is ONLY doing it cause she likes sex THAT much. "

And He replies with: "now calling all women whores is a bit beyond, but a lot of workers in the trade are proud to call Themselves it, remember a cook in the kitchen, a lady at the table and a whore in the boudoir."

And in another post, he shows exactly where that quote (cook in the kitchen..) came from, and it wasn't him.


Looks like you successfully twisted his words to make them mean what you wanted them to mean. Nice.

[LeftishBrit]

51. No he didn't

However, the phrase 'a cook in the kitchen, a lady at the table and a whore in the boudoir' is pretty creepy IMO. I know it didn't originate with the poster, but still.

[cleanhippie]

52. Did you read how he used that quote?

He was trying to show that not all women agree with seabeyond and her viewpoints.


Read the whe subthread between those two. If anyone should be ashamed, it's the one who makes false accusations, purposefully twists statements to fit an agenda, and shows the most dishonesty.

[seabeyond]

54. because us women have never heard from men that a date, marriage is no different from prostitution.

because women have never heard that when a man buys a woman food and they have sex she is no different than a prostitute. that is a totally foreign comment to all of us, never been said, on a regular basis, and here on du in the past. because we did not have a conversation of a repug politician saying the same thing, women being a whore in the bedroom, and we werent outraged, knowing the sexist comment for what it was.

it seems like it is only men that are obtuse to the obvious.

i am not coming back in this thread, to interrupt forum more, when i should not have brought this to this forum in the first place.

[cleanhippie]

55. Your personal experience has nothing to do with how you twisted his words.

You did a very dishonest thing. But that too, is a fairly common occurance here as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[seabeyond]

57. i was very honest, bluntly. i think that is what bothers the men that are

Pretending the poster didn't say exactly that. And we have not heard these comments repeatedly, for a lifetime.

[cleanhippie]

58. Ok, if you say so.

Whatever. It's your view or it's wrong. Got it.

[skepticscott]

59. "exactly that"?

Can you point to exactly where that poster said the exact words "all women are whores"? Not where you took that meaning from what he posted.

[cleanhippie]

60. Maybe I missed the part where he said what you said he said.

Can you link to te post where he calls all women whores, as you stated he did?

[laconicsax]

62. See #25 in this thread

He may not have used the exact words, but it was the implication of what he said.

[skepticscott]

63. Except that "implication" is NOT what is claimed

in #57 above:

i think that is what bothers the men that are Pretending the poster didn't say exactly that. (My emphasis)

The truth is that no one is "pretending" that the poster didn't say EXACTLY "all women are whores". The poster DIDN'T say that, and this person knows it.

[laconicsax]

66. Except it IS what was said.

To put it in a different perspective, when someone on DU2 said that no one wants to live in a society without an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith, they didn't explicitly say that religion is superior to irreligion or that secular ethics and morality were undesirable, yet that is exactly what was said.

In the same way, when someone says that a woman is "pay to lay" regardless of whether she's selling herself on the street or has sex with someone who has taken her to a movie or dinner, they are saying that all women are whores. As I pointed out upthread, the implication is that the only women who aren't whores pay for everything in their relationships and don't accept gifts because once you accept anything that cost money from a sexual partner, you're a whore.

The statement was overtly misogynistic, as is the troll who made it. Seabeyond didn't overreact at all.

[skepticscott]

71. Well, then I'll ask you

Link to the spot where that person said "all women are whores". Not what someone else INTERPRETED as MEANING that from their own perspective. EXACTLY that, because that's what was claimed. You do get that there is a very real difference between claiming that someone used certain, specific words, and saying that your version is only one way out of many of re-stating what they actually said, right? And if you're going to rely on "implication", then honesty requires you to acknowledge that the person in question specifically denied having the opinion that "all women are whores".

And I'm not saying that what WAS said or who said it wasn't overtly misogynistic, or that this is an overreaction overall, so stash that straw man. Stick to the specific claim that was made in #57 and elsewhere.

[laconicsax]

94. The issue here is how you interpret seabeyond's comment.

Specifically how you define "said" in context.

You and cleanhippie are interpreting her as saying "he used these exact words."

I see her as saying "this is exactly what he meant" and I'll hazard a guess that seabeyond sees herself as saying the same thing.

The exact words (what he "said" ) weren't used, but the meaning of those words (what he "said" ) is clear.

[skepticscott]

95. Sheesh, how many times does this have to be repeated?

We are NOT "interpreting" her as saying "he used these exact words". READ the damn post in #57 and my repetition of it in #63 AGAIN:

i think that is what bothers the men that are Pretending the poster didn't say exactly that.

EXACTLY.
EXACTLY.
EXACTLY.
She is saying the poster said EXACTLY that. Not that he said something that IMPLIED that. Not that he said something that made her THINK he meant that. EXACTLY that.

if you going to continue this kind of willful blindness to what's been put right in front of you, we're done here.

[seabeyond]

96. really, cause this is much more important than a man calling all women whores.

keep this strident argument up, and ignore the fact that a man gave the definition of whores and gave it to all women. because this argument af accepting whether he said the word or defined the word is the important part of the post.


really?

[laconicsax]

97. You're not listening.

If you take "said" as meaning "meant" then yes, he said exactly that.
If you take "said" as meaning "used these words" then no, he didn't say that at all.

The troll said that whether you sell it on the street or give it up on a date, you're a whore; woman=whore. That's the exact meaning of what he said. It's pretty clear from this entire thread that when seabeyond said "i think that is what bothers the men that are Pretending the poster didn't say exactly that" she wasn't saying that he used the exact words but gave the exact meaning.

You're no stranger to nuance in language, so why are you pretending it doesn't exist here?

[cleanhippie]

64. So we are I'm agreement them that seabeyond fabricated that part?

Because she DID make a very explicit accusation. She DID claim that he told her all women were whores. And that is NOT what he stated at all, now is it?

[laconicsax]

65. How else do you interpret "pay to lay?"

Really. The troll (I can call a MIRTed poster a troll, right?) said that whether a woman is selling herself on the street or having sex with a man who takes her to dinner or a movie, she's a whore.

That is, unless you don't think "pay to lay" is synonymous with prostitute.

[cleanhippie]

67. That's not the point. The point is that an accusation was made that was false.

I'm not taking a side on the content, just the tactic used by seabeyond, which was as dishonest as it gets. She claimed he stated that all women are whores, and he did not state that at all.

We call that bullshit wen others do it, why allow it in this case?

[laconicsax]

68. Except that IS the point.

The troll said that whether a woman is selling herself on the street or simply has sex with someone who's taken her on a date, she's a whore.

You have to twist that statement pretty far for it to not mean what seabeyond accused the troll of saying.

[cleanhippie]

69. Except that he DIDN'T say that t all.

I urge you to have a look at those two posts of his one more time. He didn't say what you think he did, and he most definitely did not say what sea beyond claimed he did.

[laconicsax]

93. His words:

Not everyone in the trade is forced into it, or find it repulsive. No more so than some feel hooking up and expecting dinner or a movie then a jump. In the end they are both pay to lay.

He's saying that "in the end" there's no difference between a woman who voluntarily prostitutes themselves and a woman who has sex with someone who takes them on dates because they're both "pay to lay."

He then defended himself by saying that prostitutes are proud to call themselves "whores" and then quoted the horrible 'cook in the kitchen, whore in the bedroom' line. Aside from his response that saying that women are whores is a bit much, he never elaborated on his comment, never stated that he didn't believe that all women were whores, and never showed an iota of understanding as to anything about his comments being inappropriate.

And in the end he was MIRTed for "misogyny from the start"

[Goblinmonger]

99. Taking a look at only the words he posted, the word "some" is important.

He didn't say all. He said "SOME" which certainly cuts against the claim that he said ALL women are whores. He seems to be indicated that there are women that will go out with someone to get something realizing they will be expected to have sex. Are we pretending there aren't people (of both sexes) like that?

Look, I don't like the guy from what I read, but I don't think he was saying, in this particular instance, what seabeyond was claiming he was saying.

[seabeyond]

100. the thing about it is, that maybe men dont get, is the dinner and movie which is a date. all of us

women have heard men say, more than once, on du, that a dinner an date =s a woman as being payed. no more than a prostitute. so though he softened it up with the some, he used the same words that so many men have used against women, forever. the some doesn't count when he makes it an ordinary date.

i personally do not believe a man should pay. i personally have never allowed a man to pay for all. personally, i have always insisted that i pick up part of the tab. so i dont see this as a personal slight, though that was the intention.

how do you clarify that some women go on a date with the intent to have date paid and give it up, in payment? that makes no sense.

i will be the first to agree that some women use men as a wallet. and it is using another person, which is wrong wrong wrong. that is not what was said by the poster.

[PassingFair]

56. Almost all women want to be treated like an equal and a human being.

I haven't known one who doesn't.

Prostitution turns a person into a commodity.

Can some women steel themselves against this
and maintain a healthy mental state?

Maybe.

But a healthy person would rather not make sex WORK.

[cleanhippie]

61. While I agree, that is YOUR opinion.

And that his nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is seabeyond claiming that a poster stated that all women are whores. Can you show me where this was stated by anyone but seabeyond?

[PassingFair]

73. Yes, by the poster that said that being paid to have sex was no different...

than having sex after a date.

THAT poster, who has been rightfully banned from this site,
thinks women are commodities.

I'm sure that women hold him in high regard, and are
clamoring for a "date" with him.

[cleanhippie]

75. So we are in agreement them that he did not, in fact, post those words?

Because I'm looking at the post that seabeyond linked to, and those words are not there.

[seabeyond]

77. " In the end they are both pay to lay." they, as in date and prostitute. yes, he called women on

dates whores.

he linked them, he qualified it, he labeled them

YOU are playing a game and are part of the problem. would you have let this pass cause he used the definition of whore, but not the word? saying, stating, typing that both a date and a prostitute are the SAME

[cleanhippie]

79. How about you post the ENTIRE thing?

Because it says a whole lot more than you are saying it does.


Really, do try some honesty here.

[seabeyond]

80. backatcha. dinner and a movie = date. pay to lay = whore. both = date and prostitute.

is it a matter of you defending this little joke that women have to live with from men? are you truly clueless why a woman would feel offended when a man says a woman is a whore one way or another, selling on the street, on a date or marriage?

the issue here is you know exactly what was said and you are playing a game with it.

so, why dont we leave it at that. you dont find it offensive for a whole gender to be called a whore because you believe it? dont find it offensive? think it is a hoot?

but we will agree to disagree.

[cleanhippie]

81. Oh no you don't. You are not gonna slander me.

You show where I have defended anything that poster stated. I am calling bullshit on YOUR intentional misquoting of what was actually posted.


Let's look again at the exchange between you two, shall we?

He says: "no it seems you dont understand that there are people who enjoy sex and getting paid. Not everyone in the trade is forced into it, or find it repulsive. No more so than some feel hooking up and expecting dinner or a movie then a jump. In the end they are both pay to lay."

Then YOU say: "ah... you are one of those that ALL women are whores, one way or another. talk enough, and we hear the same thing every. single. time. tell yourself big boy, the woman giving 20 bjs a night is ONLY doing it cause she likes sex THAT much. "

And He replies with: "now calling all women whores is a bit beyond, but a lot of workers in the trade are proud to call Themselves it, remember a cook in the kitchen, a lady at the table and a whore in the boudoir."

Not anything even CLOSE to saying what you say it does. Not even close.

Now show me where I defended "this little joke that women have to live with". If you cannot even be honest about what a person actually writes, how can you have an honest conversation about it?

[seabeyond]

82. you are not defending it, good to hear. that makes me warm, all over. nt

[cleanhippie]

83. Wow, even with the exact quotes staring you in the face

You cannot bring yourself to admit that you fabricated it, can you.

That does not make me feel warm all over.

[seabeyond]

84. dinner and a movie = date. pay to lay = whore. both = date and prostitute.

fact.

then he comes back after called out and says, no not all women.

at that point, does it really matter?

insignificant as far as i am concerned. he already tied women to prostitutes. then went on to tell women there roles, depending on the room. again, a joke, a hoot. when a repug does it, it is wrong. sexist. misogyny.

[cleanhippie]

87. And yet you continue to fabricate things. WTF?

Let's look again at the exchange between you two, shall we? this makes the 4th time I have posted tho for you.

He says: "no it seems you dont understand that there are people who enjoy sex and getting paid. Not everyone in the trade is forced into it, or find it repulsive. No more so than some feel hooking up and expecting dinner or a movie then a jump. In the end they are both pay to lay."

Then YOU say: "ah... you are one of those that ALL women are whores, one way or another. talk enough, and we hear the same thing every. single. time. tell yourself big boy, the woman giving 20 bjs a night is ONLY doing it cause she likes sex THAT much. "

And He replies with: "now calling all women whores is a bit beyond, but a lot of workers in the trade are proud to call Themselves it, remember a cook in the kitchen, a lady at the table and a whore in the boudoir."



Now just where does he come back after being called out and say not all women? Oh, right, he didn't, because he said that to BEGIN with.

Why do you continue to fabricate these things?

[PassingFair]

98. "In the end they are both pay to lay."

Try saying this on a date the next time you go out and
see how your "date" takes it.


Come on, Clean Hippie!

If you can't see the slur and the mindset behind that jerk's remark,
then good luck, because you're going to need it!

[Eliminator]

20. Looks like YOU should've been hidden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100421

He didn't say what you said he said.

[opiate69]

38. And that will probably surprise exactly nobody.

"He didn't say what you said he said."

[LeftishBrit]

49. As he's been 'MIRT'ed...

I'm probably able to say that I was juror #4 on that one, and I certainly found the post creepy. Then again, I think the system worked ultimately in that he evidently did get tossed off DU. I think that DU3 does seem to work better than DU2 in getting rid of nasty people, if not always nasty posts..

[rug]

9. On DU? If so, do a Terms of Service Alert.

Sorry it happened.

[cleanhippie]

42. No, you were not told that. YOU said that he said that. That poster did not call all women whores.

He says: "no it seems you dont understand that there are people who enjoy sex and getting paid. Not everyone in the trade is forced into it, or find it repulsive. No more so than some feel hooking up and expecting dinner or a movie then a jump. In the end they are both pay to lay."

Then YOU say: "ah... you are one of those that ALL women are whores, one way or another. talk enough, and we hear the same thing every. single. time. tell yourself big boy, the woman giving 20 bjs a night is ONLY doing it cause she likes sex THAT much. "

And He replies with: "now calling all women whores is a bit beyond, but a lot of workers in the trade are proud to call Themselves it, remember a cook in the kitchen, a lady at the table and a whore in the boudoir."

And in another post, he shows exactly where that quote (cook in the kitchen..) came from, and it wasn't him (it came from an actress in the 50's).


Looks like you successfully twisted his words to make them mean what you wanted them to mean. Nice.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. That should be "shame on SOME men" in R/Atheism

A lot of men are pigs, but not all of us are living like fucking cavemen.

[Odin2005]

27. That's rather sick!

[skepticscott]

29. I'm not sure why some atheists are so shocked

to discover that their fellow non-believers can be complete assholes. Does the atheist demographic contain its fair share of misogynistic creeps? Duh. Of course it does. As well as a variety of other not-so-nice people. Why shouldn't it, and who ever said it didn't?

Despite being a self-professed atheist, the writer (among others) doesn't seem to understand this very well. He refers to atheists as"...people who like to claim that a godless moral system is better than a Christian one", which is just silly. Atheists maintain that you don't need god to be a moral person, and that it is possible to craft a perfectly acceptable system of morals and ethics without the guidance of a deity or sacred religious texts. They typically don't claim that such a system is necessarily "better" (only that it can be just as good, so why drag religion, with all of its other baggage, into the mix?), but even if they did, being an atheist doesn't mean that a person necessarily adheres to such a system in the first place. Atheism has no dictates about how a person should behave or treat others, and notions that atheists should somehow be more moral than anyone else are really just wishful thinking. As an atheist, I'd like to be able to claim that atheists are, by virtue of their disbelief, better people, but I don't delude myself so.

[cbayer]

35. Agree. Support this and think if you substituted Christian (or any xtian) for

atheist here the point would be just as valid.

[skepticscott]

36. The difference is that

it IS the declared position of many Christians that a person cannot be moral without the guidance of god and a strong religious faith, and that immorality is inherent in atheism. Also that atheists do not presume to dictate their version of morality to the rest of the world or to impose it on others through governmental fiat.

[cbayer]

37. Many but certainly not all.

I know of Christians (and other xtians) who absolutely believe that a person can be moral without theism and most I know do not believe in the "one way" concept.

No question that some "theists" have imposed their "morality" whenever they could. I have always questioned whether these individuals (or groups) were truly who they portrayed themselves to be.

There is more opportunity for hypocrisy the more rigid or fundamental you become, imo. That goes for believers and non-believers.

[skepticscott]

39. Well, I doubt anything is true of ALL Christians

so I'm not sure what your point is. But how many instances can you cite of atheist organizations in this country trying to influence governments to pass laws imposing their version of morality on everyone? I would argue that there have been none. There's a big difference between "none" and "many", wouldn't you agree?

[cleanhippie]

40. Funny how you seem to feel differently about misogynistic and child-raping priests in the church

They get a big fat "meh", huh?

Or at east that is the reaction you give when it is brought up here, so I marvel at how angry you are about anonymous posters on the internet.




I guess we all have our priorities in different places.

[rug]

43. "seem"? That's a rather weaselly word.

Why don't you just say what you're thinking?

[cleanhippie]

44. Did you just call me a weasel?

tsk, tsk, tsk, rug.

And thanks for proving the point of my post.

[rug]

45. If I did, you'd know. It wouldn't "seem" that way.

[cleanhippie]

46. Oh, of course. You NEVER parse words.

[rug]

47. Is that what you were doing? Making veiled slurs is parsing?

No wonder your Transparency page is visible.

[cleanhippie]

53. I see that you are still trying to avoid talking about child raping priests

And institutional misogyny in the church.


Thanks again for proving my point. Spot on.

[rug]

70. That's interesting considering your comments throughout this thread explaining misogyny.

[cleanhippie]

72. That's interesting.

Your comments throughout this group condemning institutional misogyny an child rape....

Oh wait, my bad, you haven't made any such comments.


But good job trying to make this about me. that makes Jesus happy, I'm sure.

[rug]

74. You can't hide behind child rape in this thread.

[cleanhippie]

76. I'm not hiding.

And your church cannot hide its issues, no matter how hard it's adherents try to pretend it doesn't have any.

[rug]

78. You know, the Reddit atheism forum, the subject of the OP, is not the RC church.

Stomping your feet and spitting will not make it so.

[cleanhippie]

85. And pretending institutionalized child rape and misogyny in the church

Is a problem of lesser importance than the reddit atheism forum doesnt make it so.

[rug]

86. Who says it is? After your performance here you wouldn't be putting words in my mouth?

[cleanhippie]

88. Now that's ripe, you complaining that someone put words in your mouth.

Wow, rug. Just wow.

You have yourself a nice day.

[rug]

89. Scoot away.

Tell Reddit I say hi.

[cleanhippie]

90. Scoot yourself.

Abd you say hi You spend more time than I do there apparently.


Veiled slurs, indeed, rug. Shameless.

Jesus is proud, I'm sure.

[rug]

91. Yes, veiled slurs.

Come again.

[cleanhippie]

92. At least you admit it. Thanks again for making my original point.

Nice job.

[tama]

110. Dear cleanhippie

honestly, a vacation from this group and maybe from all Internet forums might do you a world of good. Please don't take this as suggestion to ban or exclude you from anything, as nothing such is meant, but just as friendly advice to think about taking little distance from the battle ground and battle mood for a period of time. With all that tension, you need to relax for a while...

All the best,
tama

[LeftishBrit]

50. Pretty vile..

and I certainly agree with your last sentence!

[trotsky]

105. What does this have to do with atheism, or religion?

People are assholes on the Internet. Stop the presses!

"The bigger the group the more the pigs."

And the Catholic church is the largest single religious group on the planet.

[rug]

106. You missed this.

"We also have as our goal the “taking back” of the term atheist. We’re very concerned that non-atheists view us as immoral evildoers by virtue of our disbelief. When someone does something abhorrent in an atheist forum, we have PR work to do, whether we like it or not. No one is going to claim that atheists are morally perfect, and I would certainly not expect it. But.. one measure of our morality as a group is how we respond to evildoers in our midst. In this case, the response needs to be clear: This is intolerable."

[trotsky]

107. Let me know when you've made some PR progress for Catholic priests. n/t

[rug]

108. After you make a relevant response to this article.

[trotsky]

109. The article is hand-wringing about assholes on the Internet...

who might not even be atheists. The author has no proof, neither do you, and neither do I. Besides, atheists are not a monolithic group, we have no global organization like your church does that tells us how to behave. I refuse to believe that you don't understand this, so I am forced to conclude that this thread was intended as flamebait. You win again, rug.

[rug]

111. I have plenty of proof about assholes on the internet.

But you may be right. It was wrong of me to assume people posting in the Reddit atheism group might be atheists. They're probably Mormons.

[trotsky]

112. Oh please.

There are plenty of believers who lurk in the Atheists & Agnostics group at DU to quote-mine and police it, we have proof of that. How do you know Reddit is different? It could very well be that 2000 atheist jerks recommended a stupid comment. But you don't know that, and neither do I.

Nor did you have any comment on the fact that atheists are not a monolithic group, nor do we even pretend to be unlike the church that you belong to and which has protected REAL LIFE PEDOPHILES for centuries.

Rather than face this fact and seriously address it, you try taking potshots at non-believers with threads like this. Keep raising the tone, rug. Awesome job.

[rug]

113. QED

[tama]

114. An off topic

brought to mind by the anthropological issues of cultural evolution involved in the "battle between sexes" and the background of the "between fist and stove" issue.

I'm currently reading a book about the role of fire and cooking in human evolution, and one interesting tidbit is that among hunter-gatherer societies it's very strong universal, practically 100%, that wife cooks meal for husband. Male hunters generally bring more calories to the tribe than female gatherers, but of course there are many exceptions depending on the local ecosystem, and physically stronger males protect the peace that cooking and consuming cooked food requires. Sexual relations are of secondary importance compared to family units that are based on division of labor between sexes, women cook meals for their husbands and men hunt (and discuss politics ). In hunter-gatherer tribes women having sex with other men can of course cause all sorts of emotional troubles, and vice versa, but if a woman fails to cook meal for his husband, that by norm leads to socially accepted and even expected beating.

Humans are the only species using fire and metabolism and culture adapted to cooked food, and the division of labor between sexes has been a natural evolutionary process following from fire and cooked food - interestingly this anthropological background explains at least partly the title of Lakoff's best known book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things", which is a linguistic semantic&morphological category IIRC in an Australian language.

The history of evolution of course does not mean that it has to be so, much of civilization can be seen as women braking the confines of their social roles in hunter gatherer societies, and cultural evolution goes on. We - neither of the sexes - are not doomed to repeating the "between fist and stove" pattern ad infinitum, but needless to say, cultural evolution and changes in the division of labor between sexes are not always easy for individuals.