In defense of Raw Story

[WilliamPitt]

Those of you who know me here know that I work for truthout.org, and I am rising in defense of Raw Story. Why? Because they perform an incredibly valuable service.

Those who criticize them for "teasing" stories, well, I can tell you that in the small-money alternative news business, if you don't gather attention to your organization, you will die quick and hard. That's just how it is. Wear a helmet.

Those who say they only repost other stories, well, so does Buzzflash. So does SmirkingChimp. Hell, so does truthout to no small degree. What you have in all these sites is a group of people willing to read 30-50 newspapers a day, so they can provide you with the important stories you don't have time to find yourself. It took truthout three years to reach a point where we could offer significant quantities of original material.

"But Buzzflash has original content," you say? Well, so does Raw Story, as evidenced by the recent flame-out over a RS article critical of atheists. Am I willing to damn the site for one article I might not agree with? Hell no. If you only read the stuff you agree with 100%, you're an empty wad of meat that serves no intellectual purpose. Allow yourself to be challenged, even offended. You sharpen your claws on the stuff you disagree with. That's a good thing.

Finally, Raw Story is on our side. They bust their asses to do what they do, and they do it well, and I greatly appreciate their efforts.

[DesEtoiles]

1. I read rawstory several times a day

[Writer]

2. Will, I have a question...

Do truthout and rawstory, to your knowledge, operate with a set editorial policy/board similar to "mainstream" newsrooms, or do they use a different system?

Edit: typo

[WilliamPitt]

7. I can't speak for Raw

but at truthout, we vet the hell out of stories like the ones Jason has been posting. Our boss has been on Jason like a second skin every step of the way, not because of a lack of trust, but because the issues are so crucial and EVERYTHING has to be letter-perfect and sourced in seven directions. Jason's sources are solid as concrete.

With the stuff we repost from places like the Times, Post, etc., we use our judgment. We also operate under the belief that those papers have their own significant editorial process of vetting and sourcing, and we rely on their standards. We've not been burned yet...which means we never ran Judy Miller or Jayson Whatshisname. :)

[lukery]

16. raw story's comment about their editorial practices

written by john byrne is here
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/rawstorys-credibility-sources.html

[Writer]

17. Hey I really do appreciate this...

I had attempted to contact John and get some information directly from him for some research I was completing. This is a very helpful link. Thank you!

[valerief]

3. Well said. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

4. Raw Story sucks.

I'm not being selective, any rag that publishes hate speech and smears the people who were targeted when they voice their outrage sucks.

[girl gone mad]

51. I have to wonder...

why it's considered acceptable to smear non-believers. I hadn't read Raw Story before, but now I will go out of my way not to.

[beam me up scottie]

54. I didn't read them before this,

because I despise tabloid journalism, but this editorial went too far.

I am now going out of my way to make sure everyone is aware of their selective policy when it comes to minorities.

[Orsino]

328. Because the Bible does so...

...as do the analogous scriptures of other faiths. Once a religion is established, nonbelievers are by definition second-class citizens--at best.

Eighty percent or more of humanity is religious, a majority comparable to that of heterosexuality. Is it so surprising that atheists are smeared in the same breath as gays?

[Strong Atheist]

79. Agreed 100%!

:yourock:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1027369

[senseandsensibility]

5. okay, but did you ever find out how rawstory

knew about Leopold's story before it was "out"?

[wookie294]

6. Agreed

Raw Story ROCKS!

My daily reading always requires Truthout, RawStory and Buzzflash -- the new media!! Can't get through life without them!

[salvorhardin]

11. Raw Story: The new yellow journalism

Just like Hearst they apparently like to publish hate speech smearing a large group of pepole disguised as "provocative" "editorials" and then blaming their victims when challenged.

[wookie294]

14. "Rove likely to be indicted" -- Reuters

Hey, didn't I see that on Raw Story and Truthout before Reuters? Hmmmm....

"Another source close to Rove said he has not been notified that he is likely to be indicted soon." -- Reuters

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12857.htm

[Taxloss]

336. Shoot enough arrows, one might hit.

Raw Story made a guess and got the fundamental idea right from a suspicion that most Plamegate-watchers already had. They had the date, timing, reason, and method all wrong. Indeed, they had to correct their story and say that they were wrong. That's not journalism. That's idle speculation. (With a dash of wishful thinking to keep the progressive clickpennies rolling.)

Hold on, I'll try it:

Breaking: Republicans certain to win in '08

Breaking: Democrats certain to win in '08.

There. Now I can look back on my correct prediction in two years and say - you read it here first.

[fearnobush]

288. Them words sounds like freepin words.

[lala_rawraw]

351. Yellow Journalism? You should look that up

And I suggest your scroll down and answer the questions I asked one of your pals, because if you are going to accuse everyone at Raw Story of Yellow Journalism, you better have the balls to back it up. Show me where any of my articles exhibited yellow journalism, just one is fine (oh, and you are not allowed to change wording from the author's original, like you like to so often do). One example, just one is fine. Also, please provide where Miriam Raftery has practiced yellow journalism. One example is fine. Should not be hard for such an expert such as yourself to locate such abundance of yellow journalism from me, Miriam, John, and every other reporter at Raw. Right?

Your pals fell over and played moron when unable to find one example, can you locate one, just one of my articles that is an example of yellow journalism? Come on, I want one example. If you cannot find any, then I suggest you stop attempting to defame all the writers at a publication because you don't like one columnist.

[Maddy McCall]

8. Defend them today. If your history is any indication, you'll be raging...

about them tomorrow.

That's always amused me about you, though. :)

If you defend the way Raw Story does business, well, that makes me think a lot less about your journalistic abilities. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

9. They're a lot different from what we do at truthout

but the service they provide is a good one.

And I'll ignore the unwarranted insult.

[Maddy McCall]

13. So, you got an answer to the question you asked them in...

the other thread, I presume?

You publicly asked how they got info that Jason was working on the target letter story. Was your curiosity sated?

No insults involved, Will. It's just the way it is. I'm not faulting you for it--and I'm sure many DUers respect your vouching for Raw Story.

I am not one of them. I think that truthout is miles more respectable and credible than Raw Story. And I'm entitled to that opinion, and shouldn't be subjected to arm-twisting or insults myself, just because I think differently than the majority of DUers on this issue.

Edit: Just got your PM. Seriously, Will, you have to wonder, since Jason also said that he hadn't leaked it to them. :shrug:

[snooper2]

124. DU provides a better service than Rawstory

And the funny part, is probably 90% of their readers come from DU. Everytime I see BOLD ALL CAPS I can tell it's the "rawstory" person posting something here so people will click on it and he/she will make another penny. It's actually a sad way to try to make a buck.

Maybe if they actually "knew" somebody in the CIA, FBI, Justice, whatever who gave them leaks, then they would be worthwile. But, unlike Matt Drudge, who they try to copy, they don't have shitty ass Repukes feeding them leaks...

So the value of raw story is actually, negative. It is one of those sites that is a waste of bandwidth on the Internet.

[roguevalley]

10. raw story is on my must read list just like buzzie and all the others

[Warren DeMontague]

12. If they posted an identical story "critical" of gays, or black people, or

or any other minority that constantly catches crap in this society, their progressive credentials would be seriously called into question, particularly if they petulantly refused to acknowledge what a cheap shot the piece was, and instead of apologizing, attacked the piece's critics.

If I want to sharpen my claws on blather about how "secular whackjobs" are persecuting the poor, downtrodden religious believers in our rapidly blossoming 21st century theocracy, I'll watch Bill O'Reilly, or read Cal Thomas's incoherent blather.

Sorry, Will, but they're fully deserving of the shit storm on this one. I, too, have appreciated their efforts in the past- but personally, I'm not letting this slide without a well-deserved apology. I'm gonna have to go with "Fuck Raw Story", as well.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Best post of the day.

If I want to sharpen my claws on blather about how "secular whackjobs" are persecuting the poor, downtrodden religious believers in our rapidly blossoming 21st century theocracy, I'll watch Bill O'Reilly, or read Cal Thomas's incoherent blather.

:thumbsup:

[salvorhardin]

19. Two thumbs up on that post

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Strong Atheist]

80. Agreed!

:yourock:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1027369

[converted_democrat]

86. I agree with you.. That article was over the line to say the least..

I consider myself to be a Christian, but I believe anyone and everyone should be entitled and respected for their own set of beliefs.. I'm not reading again Raw until it's corrected, or an apology is issued.. It was way over the line.. Atheists deserve just as much respect as any other group out there. That article just went too far..

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Thank you!

:yourock:

[Roland99]

140. Oh, please. You're way overgeneralizing. Or, do you consider all blacks

or gays as extremists?


:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Way to deliberately mis-interpret what I wrote.

Well done.

Sure, because I'm standing up for the rights of the minority in this country that has the temerity (and that's what this is all about, isn't it?) to publicly state their disbelief in any of the popular, major religions, I must be a racist and a homophobe.

:eyes:, yourself.

Hell, that deserves another set. :eyes:

If you can't see how that article -with it's allusions to 'purging' the left of atheists and 'cleaning out the attic'- (not to mention the way it defined anyone who asserts was a logical basis for not believing in God as, as you put it, an "extremist") was a bigoted cheap shot, that's your problem.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

210. The article was poorly written, disrespectful, and tasteless, imho..

on edit- I'm a Christian, and I believe everyone has a right to their own belief system, and they should be respected for it..

[Roland99]

253. Whining to the mods about me calling you out on misinterpreting

the article at RawStory?


wow.

[Warren DeMontague]

294. Whoever "whined to the mods"

it wasn't me. Hell, I didn't even get a chance to read your reply, but judging by how quickly it got deleted, I guess it broke the rules.

Nice Job.

[Inland]

177. Uh...the OPPOSITE would be an editorial about Xtian whackjobs.

Race and sexual orientation aren't beliefs. Nobody holds an extreme race, or an unfounded, unproven and intolerant sexual orientation. This is about the mental stuff. So the opposite would be an editorial about extremists christians, or one that painted christians with a broad brush, for example.

Anyone here actually think that screeds against christians are off limits can just read this very thread, and four fifths of the R/T section, whose denizens have finally found their way to GD just for this thread.

[Zhade]

313. If atheism were a belief, and not the LACK of belief, you'd be right.

But it's not, so you aren't.

[Inland]

371. Hm. Now I got to check all the posts in this thread

and check up on what you've been saying behind my back. Seeyas in deletion land.

[Seen the light]

248. Bingo

Raw Story is nothing to me anymore. I don't even know if an apology would be enough.

[nofurylike]

311. VERY well said, impeachdubya. thank you for that!

excellent:

"blather about how 'secular whackjobs' are persecuting the poor, downtrodden religious believers in our rapidly blossoming 21st century theocracy..."


peace and solidarity

[Zynx]

368. How come atheists on this board don't criticize articles that are equally

vitriolic towards Christians? Hmmmm?

[DanCa]

15. Actually Raw Story did us a huge favor with that article.

It reminded us that no one likes to be called names because of their belief systems. It's the golden rule people, if you don't like people picking on your belief system, than you shouldn't be picking on the belief system of others. Remember what Jung says, that which truly upsets us in others is often a reflection of our selves.
Or as Elvis sang, " before you abuse, criticize, and confuse, walk a mile in my shoes."

[americanstranger]

20. Actually, that was Joe South.

Elvis might have covered it, but South wrote it.

- as

[DanCa]

21. Thank you very much

Elvis did cover it. He's a great entertainer but did he write any of his own material :D
Just wondering :popcorn:

[Maddy McCall]

32. Elvis did right much of his own material. Vanilla Ice didn't--he stole...

other people's work and passed it off as his own. :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. Exactly...

I can't help but spare a laugh for those screaming about Raw Story's "hate speech" who call Christians "wackjobs" on a routine, if not daily, basis. Karma sucks.

[DanCa]

24. t's a rubber band effect

On the one hand I had a Bishop tell me to my face that I deserve parkinsons because I want stem cell research cure. He said that God was mad at me for wanting to harvest babies for my own use. At the other end of the spectrum I get laughed at because I pray that a breaktrhough in stem cell research would occur and take away my pain. It sucks to be in the middle of all this especially since I believe in what the left offers politically.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. That sucks, Dan

Both of those people are insensitive, evil assholes.

I think all the religion/athiesm wars miss the point entirely. Some people are assholes. Some of them use religion to justify their assholery. Some use athiesm to justify their assholery. Both are equally contemptible. However, there are many good people who are religious and many who are athiest.

I don't care what excuse people are using to be an asshole; if they are being an asshole, they deserve to get called on it, plain and simple.

[DanCa]

29. My grand pa had this saying

Some of the richest people that he knew didn't have a dime to their names and for some the more that they have the less that theier worth. I think that we all need to take one hit from a giant community bong and calm down abit. I mean the only way that we can beat the rethugs is thru unity and not division :D
Oh your right there are alot of good christians and aethiest on this page that I love dearly and that I would love to hang out with in real life. Than there are some who just drive me crazy. Hmm maybe you and I should restart the Whig party? Whatya think WildeyedLiberal in 08 :D :hug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Awww, thanks Dan

:hug:

It's just all about being a good person, being tolerant, and being kind to other people. I know many religious people and many athiests who are good, kind, honest, gentle people, and sadly, a few of each group who are unkind and cruel. It's just human nature - the best thing to do is ignore the negative people are angry and hateful and just spend our time with the positive ones who make life worth living.

[trotsky]

87. "thru unity and not division"

I agree, which is why I found an article essentially calling for a party purge of one type of Democrat highly upsetting.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Yep, and I called you on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1035657&mesg_id=1035727

Plain and simple.;)

[progressoid]

142. Hey, why are you picking on assholes???

:sarcasm:

[JVS]

211. I'm tired of all this hate speech against assholes

;-)

[Maddy McCall]

30. Riiight.

;-) Hi, WEL. :hi:

You and I are in disagreement on this. I didn't form my opinion of Raw Story over the atheist blow-up.

I care for Raw Story no more than I care for Drudge. Same MO, different political bent. I've said that for a year or more.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. So go to another thread than! Riiight.

;) :hi: Maddy!

I actually don't really have an opinion of Raw Story one way or another. I got tired of it when it was plagued with nasty pop-ups, so I haven't even been there in months.

I honestly haven't read enough of their stuff to form an opinion about the site. I don't really agree with the article Will mentions and I thought it was poorly-written more than anything, but I do find some of the outrage here about it to be, well, kind of ironic.

No one should be disparaged for something they believe, and I sincerely hope some of those who are currently offended by the Raw Story article take that lesson to heart. The world would be a much better place if people made an effort to be tolerant and understand where others were coming from instead of immediately going into defensive/attack mode.

[beam me up scottie]

44. So your response to outrage over blatant bigotry is that it's "ironic"?

How liberal.

Of course, if this article had been intolerant of brown people or homosexuals, I doubt you would dare infer that they should learn a lesson from it.

[Carni]

130. Really anyone who is pissed over that editorial

Should email them and let their feelings be known!

[salvorhardin]

144. We did

And we were told we were wrong to feel outraged, and then we were called liars, and then we were called shills for the right wing... Lovely editorial policy Raw Story seems to have.

[Carni]

150. Oh geez, I didn't realize that

I read the initial editorial yesterday on another thread -- I was not aware that people had written to complain and were then rebuffed.

If that is the case then I agree that is bullshit conduct--they should have just said the opinions were those of the author or something.

If that were an article about Christians, or Muslims, or Jews (or whoever) and the author had proclaimed they were extremists whacks--that would never have flown and an apology of some type would surely have been issued.

Now I see why people are so pissed off.

[salvorhardin]

155. You can read Avery Walker's original statement on my site

Avery Walker is Raw Story's Editorial Editor. It has been changed multiple times since I republished it but there are also his comments to others. Here's a link, Avery Walker's statement is toward the end: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/04/23/et_tu_brute

And here's what Avery Walker had to say in the comments section of Melinda Barton's article. Raw Story edited the article they published after the fact and is now calling us liars.

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

[Carni]

196. Ok now I see why people are pissed

IMO That is at the very least in very poor taste.

There was no reason for them to *go there* as far as I am concerned.

[Zhade]

316. Wow, what a blatantly dishonest attempt to blame the victim.

My opinion of RS shrinks by the minute.

[girl gone mad]

52. I do not call Christians whackjobs..

unless their behavior actually warrants it.

There is a huge difference between attacking a powerless, voiceless minority and attacking a powerful, established majority that is trying to control everyone's life through legislation.

Secularists are merely responding to the religous right's increasing infringement on our personal freedoms. The assertions made in the Raw Story piece were without merit. Atheists and secularists are not a danger to our civil rights. It isn't complicated. One group is trying to control how citizens can live their lives, and it isn't the atheists.

[NMMNG]

61. Bingo

When has an atheist ever:

-Bombed an abortion clinic or killed an abortion doctor
-Demanded that half the population be denied access to a medical procedure even if their life is in danger
-Picketed a funeral , holding signs that say things like "I'm thankful for IEDs/AIDS/Dead gays/Dead soldiers"
-Demanded that people be denied the right to marry (and other basic civil rights) because of what some book says
-Attacked and even killed gays
-Demanded that children be fed inadequate and even false information about their bodies and sexuality
-Demanded that scientific information be stifled and personal opinions be taught in its place in public schools
-Refused to allow theists to run for public office

etc, etc.


So where they get the idea that atheists are whackjobs I have no clue. But there are Christian whackjobs out there to be sure.

[Chomp]

70. Buffy

you should give this post it's own thread I reckon. Excellently succinct.

[NMMNG]

310. Thank you

I might just do that. :evilgrin:

[Inland]

169. That's not right.

1) To the extent that there's a difference between attacking a powerless, voiceless minority and attacking a powerful, established majority, you had better be careful about who you put in which group. Not all chrisitans are a powerful, established, or part of a "majority" in any sense. Not all atheists are powerless or voiceless.

2) To the extent there's a difference between attacking groups, there's no difference that extends to whether truth and fairness is a prerequisite. Therefore there can never be a "huge difference" between attacks on one group versus another, or for assumptions about individuals because they belong to a groupl, by whomever defined.

[Goblinmonger]

97. So who exactly is it

that has classified all Christians as wackjobs? Have I called Robertson a Christian wackjob? Sure. He is, isn't he? Have I referred to ALL Christians that way? Hell no. Give me a break.

So if there are African-Americans out there critical of the treatment they receive from whites, it is somehow OK for said whites to refer to them as "niggers"? Or, worse yet, for the progressive liberals to tell them to shut up because they are costing us votes? Give me a break once again.

[Inland]

191. So who exactly classified all atheists as whackjobs?

Nobody. She classified some atheists as whackjobs while explicitly and in italics saying that every form of thought has it's whackjobs.

Or is it a form of calling all atheists "niggers", or telling all atheists to shut up, to simply opine that some atheists are over the top? Only an over the top whackjob would say yes.

[Goblinmonger]

194. No, she did do that

SHe has this little disclaimer of crap that basically comes down to the fact that agnostics are OK, but that the whackjobs are those that deny religion/spiritual. She says it.

She just opines? That makes it sound like she is sitting on her veranda sipping a mint julip while fanning herself with a palmetto leaf. She did more than opine. And you know it.

She is calling for the Democratic Party to cut all atheists off from the party. To disown us so that the moderate Republicans will come back.

Fuck that. If you don't understand why that would put atheists off, you are deliberately being obtuse.

[Inland]

200. I understand why it would put atheists off. But is that enough?

Nobody likes being told that they belong to a group that includes whackos. It's merely a question of whether it's true and fair or not.

That's not an argument that's going to be won by setting up a strawman ("despite what she said, she said all atheists are whackjobs", essentially) or by the frankly offensive and self serving attempt to analogize it to a racial slur.

Therefore let's all just admit that there are, indeed, intolerant and divisive atheists who are loudly bigoted against religion. Shit happens, even if remarking on it puts you off. Hell, I'll admit to being an American, which is a group that includes both religious AND atheist whackjobs AND people who really are racists, and I won't even go off on anyone who points it out.

[Goblinmonger]

205. But that is not what she said

I know there are atheists that are assholes. I'm an asshole sometimes. I know that. She said that all atheists (through her definition of secular) were extremists. She DID NOT SAY that SOME atheists are extremists. She might have wanted to say that, but she didn't. And I can't believe that someone who writes for a living, after being edited several times, would be that unclear in what she wants to say.

[Inland]

218. The article is unclear in many ways, but not that one.

Atheist whackjobs are a special type of atheist. Can't misconstrue that at all. But misconstruing allows the focus to be on an outraged victimhood rather than merely accepting the unpleasant facts. See it all the time. Just this time, it's a different ox being gored.

[Lolivia]

227. But that's the problem - she didn't use facts

The biggest issue with the article is that she didn't actually provide any facts or evidence of what she was claiming. She didn't actually show the existence of ANY atheist "whackjobs." Whether they actually exist or not, her article merely set up strawmen, and then knocked them down.

Here is just ONE small example: her outrageous claim # 5, where she herself admits she doesn't have ANY proof that this is actually a position of any statistically significant segment of atheists. If it isn't held by any significant portion, and it's really just her acquaintance "Bob" who says that (since her personal acquaintances was all the "evidence" she had)- she needs to explain why the title of the piece wasn't "The Left Needs to Clean Its Attic of the Whackjob Bob."

She also doesn't show that even if there WERE a statistically significant portion of atheists who held that opinion, that it would actually lead to the abolition (or attempted abolition) of all religious symbols/practices. So again, there are no facts here. A strawman fallacy coupled with a slippery slope fallacy does not equal facts or evidence.

For the rest of her claims - her commentary doesn't actually correspond to what she is claiming atheists say. It's just one fallacy after the other. (Look at her outrageous claim #1 - the actual quotes she provides from atheists do not match up with what she claims atheist say)

She gave no real world proof of the existence of even one alleged "whackjob" - let alone that there are so many who hold those "outrageous claims" as an official position that they need to be purged from the left. And some of the "outrageous claims" are really just claims she doesn't agree with - that doesn't make them extreme AND dangerous AND hence in need of purging.

The point is, if she writes a piece premised on the idea that there are enough extremist atheist that they need to be purged, she needs to show:

- Who these extremist are, and that they occur in enough numbers to be relevant
- That their positions are actually extreme, and not just positions she doesn't agree with
- That if they are extreme, they actually poses a real and direct threat to the liberal cause. Not all extreme positions are dangerous, not all dangers to the party are a result of extremism.

I'm not claiming extremists don't exist, I'm just pointing out that she didn't make a case.

[Inland]

182. It may be an eye opener.

Whether it's aphorisms about the owner of the ox being gored, or the Golden Rule, or Hegel, or kindergartners, it's always useful to ask if so and so is fair if the target is changed.

But will those lessons be applied here?

[Zhade]

315. Can you actually post one such example...

...of anyone who disliked the hate in that article calling any believer a whackjob?

I'll be happy to wait while you look for some evidence that you didn't just pull that out of thin air.

[bling bling]

31. Best response EVER!

Absolutely right! What an incredibly important point you've made.

[jsamuel]

129. yes, good point

Jung and I think alike... I don't know who Jung is, but I thought of the same thing and have held that idea very closely.

[Inland]

188. It shouldn't be about whose ox is gored. nt

[Zhade]

314. But Dan, atheism isn't a belief system.

It can't be a system, because it consists of one basic thing, the lack of belief in gods, and isn't a belief, since a lack of belief isn't a belief anymore than barefoot is a type of shoe.

I agree on not going around insulting people, though, regardless of belief or lack thereof.

[lostexpectation]

23. you given all the reasons not to like

tease and nudge nudge wink wink sources we can't take "sources" at face value anymore if we ever could at all

[Bucky]

25. I am an empty wad of meat

My, sir, but you can certainly turn a phrase. And good words on Raw Story, too. But please remember that the occasional mad rush of mob judgment that happens on this and virtually every other partisan website to be squeaky wheels, not the main axel.

[hlthe2b]

27. Well said... Why is it that we so often "eat our own?"

Thanks for speaking out on behalf of Raw Story, Will. They most certainly HAVE broken stories--something that can't be easy in the current climate of "bury the story..."

:thumbsup:

[Beausoir]

28. What are they? Are they factual or not?

Are they entertainers and gossip-mongers or are they meant to be taken as serious journalists?

[dweller]

36. who the fuck knows?

you're a Liberal aren't ya?

you take your chances and you flex your mind. Otherwise you pound your round consciousness into a square Foxhole.


goodnite all. Tomorrow is a new day.
dp

[hwmnbn]

34. RS is one of the sites I check first ..........

just the fact Larisa Alexandrovna works for Raw Story is enough for me to support it. In my opinion, they've been solid.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. K & R. It's a wrongheaded notion...

...that Raw Story should be getting anything but support, both moral and financial, from the DU community. They do an amazing job on a bare bones, shoestring budget. Constructive criticism is fine, but it should be offered in the spirit of support. We NEED Raw Story and they need us---and I hold this truth to be self-evident.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. A call for a witch hunt in the left, and then the editor defending it

hardly counts as behaviour that self-evidently deserves our support. I don't appreciate be called a threat to freedom and liberty by someone who seems to be a leftist reincarnation of McCarthy. It's certainly not constructive criticism on their part, and it's difficult to know how I'm expected to be constructive in return, since she called for me to be shunned by all progressives.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

151. Quality alternative news...

...media that reliably delivers honest, objective, high quality journalism, which we can't get from corporate owned media, is what I was referring to---I think Raw Story is filling this need, and doing it well considering their budget. That said, I understand the strong reaction to that editorial, but I don't think it warrants the free for all, trashing of Raw that's been going on.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

37. For some reason this seems somewhat appropriate

Other than that, this is one conversation I'm staying out of.... :bounce:

[JohnnyCougar]

38. You're right, Will

Raw Story doesn't get enough credit here or anywhere. They are very nice and reasonable people, and they can't be expected to be perfect. They report a lot of good news.

[demobabe]

40. Raw Story is on Raw Story's side

Buzzflash does not repackage news. The have a links page, and publish their own articles and editorials.

They also refuse to sell out to advertisers like Raw Story has. BlogAds alone has the potential to net Raw Story over $30,000 per month, and they're not the only ads on their site!

Don't even compare those two sites. Buzzflash didn't pick a fight here, and they have the journalistic integrity to not promote unfounded hype here as does Raw Story, and now sadly, Truthout (which used to have integrity, and I had admired them).

It isn't just one sophmoric article that's been an embarrassement, it's the Republican-style tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear froth purely for capital gain.

I DARE Raw Story to open their books publicly.

They're not going to tell you how much they're making off those who buy their dreck - hook, line, and sinker.

It just kills me you argue they're doing a GOOD service because they get it right part of the time - that excuses the articles that are pure hype and educated guesses. Good intentions do not give them a pass.

So many blogs rely on Raw Story for their news that when Raw Story is wrong ONCE, then the whole blogisphere is wrong. We can't afford that. We really can't.

Today was a perfect example. Slate called you out. What's even worse, is that this is the SECOND time this mistake has been made: see the first one here and notice the correction at the bottom of the page:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_missing_from_events_Word_on_1005.html

We're supposed to be the party that aren't MORANS, who think, argue, debate, and get our facts straight! We need to demand excellence in journalism and not promote mediocrity.

Otherwise, we're just the same as Republicans: let's just say what sounds good, and if it's right, that's great, and if it isn't, then let's pretend it didn't happen or excuse it.

You're better than this, Will - I know you are... You put your ass on the line about Jason Leopold today and he was wrong. I know you're so much better than that; why would you hitch your wagon to this guy?

You should apologize for your role in today's events and let it go. It's okay to be wrong. We will only respect you more for having the balls to be accurate and to fess up when you make a mistake.

[dweller]

46. gasp!

Not BLOGADS!!!


:yawn:


sidenote to DanCa: Freud termed it 'projection' ...

dp

[demobabe]

63. DU has BlogAds, yes

But DU employees don't go and invade other people's sites and repetitively post misleading or multiple postings designed to funnel traffic to their site. DU gets their traffic fair and square. Raw Story is inflating their ad rates by repeatedly beating DUers into a froth to get them to click on their links and come to their site. It's dishonest.

[Left Coast Lynn]

149. Well said

:)

[Canuckistanian]

42. I certainly didn't agree with the atheist article

Hell, articles and posts will be written for YEARS about this piece of tripe.

But, you're right, I won't stop reading RS just because of this.

It's just too good of a resource, even if the "breaking news" sometimes proves to be a little.... suspect.

[Brundle_Fly]

43. Raw Story is...

a damned good source for news, Thanks for standing up William, I will as well.

Anyone who reads them, will realize they source many of their own stories, as well as linking to other stories that might otherwise be missed.


Kudos Raw!

[Horse with no Name]

45. Thank you for this

I can't understand why we can't have as many progressive outlets of news as the market will bear.

[understandinglife]

47. Well stated Will. Recommended.

Peace.

[iconoclastNYC]

48. Thank for your defense of Raw Story

You make a great argument for Raw Story.

I do think that Larissa was unskillful in her response to the flare up however. On DU here she seemed to be responding more from emotional state then from calm collected professionalism. That was a bit disappointing.

And I do think that we should hold progressive publications to high standards.

I hope Larissa will think twice about running articles that attack members of the left-wing coalition in such a thoughtless and mean-spirited way.

Raw Story should not disseminates articles that use Anne Coulter tactics.

That being said there are far too many people who conspiciously trash Raw Story as a whole. Wikipedia gets the same sort of treatment too.

[autorank]

49. K&R. Needed to be said. RAW Rocks so does TruthOut.

We need to get back into the majority for about 15 years, then we can have these sorts of little dust ups. But we'll be so busy cleaning up the disaster that is the Neocon program, there won't be time and "regressives" will be back in another form.

Raw Story :yourock:

[fearnobush]

285. Right on! Fight Neo-Conns, not Raw Story.

[Taxloss]

337. Criticise Raw Story for attacking the left, then. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

50. well I just went over there and got a huge ugly popup

so they're using some program that bypasses Mozilla's popup blocker. I haven't seen a popup for eons and don't care to see another. Therefore I really don't want to go to that site again.

[Brundle_Fly]

53. popup programs

only work if the popups are coming from another Ip address, if the address is the same (ie: raw story, is hosting the ads) you will still get them.

You can turn off all popups, even ones local to where you are searching in your preferences.

[Mythsaje]

55. I didn't care one way or another about the RS article on atheists...

Then again, I'm not an atheist. I had nothing invested either way.

That said, I think revealed religion is a bunch of bunk, and the fact that even a "left" leaning newsblog sees fit to shove it down our throat is suspect, at best. You want smoke blown up YOUR ass, squat over the fire. But don't start blowing it my direction, because I'm not interested.

(not speaking to you specifically here, Will. It's a general "you" aimed at no one in particular).

It's all myth to me. I see no difference between a Christian and a neo-pagan in terms of how they approach the universe. Both believe in "truths" that are meaningless to me. I know the universe exists, I know the Earth exists, and I know that humanity exists. Anything beyond that is all conjecture, and it's not even supportable conjecture.

I'm sorry if Christians get offended when they feel as though they're being mocked or ridiculed. I try very hard to give them at least a modicum of respect, though, frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass what they do or do not believe. Their beliefs or lack of same has no bearing on anything...I judge people on how they act, not what they profess to believe.

[smirkymonkey]

287. Best post on the thread.

I really think that the premise of the Raw Story article was flawed. What she doesn't realize is that many of us who profess to atheism or agnosticism feel exactly the same way you do about religion. Their myths, stories, fantasies - whatever you want to call them - are MEANINGLESS to us. Speaking for myself, I don't have a belief that there is no God, I just consider the QUESTION to be an exercise in futility.

MEANINGLESS. It's like saying that people who don't believe in Santa Claus, and who claim to be more rational than people who do believe in Santa Claus, are militant Anti-Santa Claus whackjobs. Which is not the case. We just do not believe in Santa Claus. Whether we feel morally or intellectually superior about that has more to do with the individual and his insecurities rather than any inherent quality of "People Who Don't Believe in Santa Claus."

Sure, there are militant athiests just as there are fundamentalist religious whackjobs, but to offer a blanket condemnation of all non-believers (I chose non-believer - A-Theist - without a god) claiming that they are some monolithic fanatical fringe is just poor journalism. Personally, I think this is a woman who is insecure about her spiritual beliefs and, like most religious "whackjobs" lashes out with undue force against those who don't adhere to their creed. She throws in a few terms like "ontological" and "logical fallacy" to distract the reader from the fact that her article is nothing more than the screed of a threatened believer lashing out at her percieved enemy.

[Taxloss]

56. If "journalism" now equals "reading newspapers" ...

... the bar has been lowered so far it's dropped off the stand and has rolled into the gutter.

And, as the screed against atheists made clear, Raw Story is not on "our" side.

[evermind]

58. Erm, but it wasn't a "screed against atheists" - it was directed against

those atheists who make a fundamentalist religion out of their (dis)belief!

In my view, anyone who invests so much of their personal identity into their (non)religion / sexuality / operating system, etc. that they can't have a balanced, insult-free discussion about it is already a lost cause, psychologically speaking.

Edit: Oh, and as for the "reading newspapers" bit - well, I'm not sure what Will means there, since quite a few stories I've read on RS cite their own sources (though often anonymous). Certainly, they do go out and talk to people. (UK defence journo) Michael Smith, for one, around the time the "extra" DSM's were being "verified" by some of the US media (though, to be fair, they'd already been verified some months previously by the UK press... In fact, if Raw Story just stuck to "reading newspapers" they'd have simply gone ahead and published about the extra DSMs about 4-5 days before the rest of the US press. As it was, since they stuck to verifying via their own sources, they were barely ahead of (I think) NBC and LAT, on that one. They *were* ahead, though.)

[Taxloss]

65. The trouble is

that atheists are - rightly, in my opinion - frightened and angry about the present course in US politics towards a theocratic society. Atheists are the canary in the mine here. And if atheists can't hit back against an overwhelming tide of religiosity without being told to sit down and shut up by people allegedly on their side, then what hope is there?

What if the article had made the same "points" about "homosexual extremists", and pointed out that most people are heterosexual, so homos should shut up for fear of alienating the majority? That sort of thing would be right vilified on DU, and I am shocked more DUers don't see it in those terms.

[evermind]

66. Well, again you're conflating the practitioners and the extremists

but it's a distinction worth retaining, imho.

If such an article attacked "homosexual extremists", just what would it be attacking?

We know that if that was a Fox News piece, then the term "homosexual extremist" would likely include anyone in favour of gay marriage, but I think in a RS article, written along the lines of the one in question, should such a thing exist it would likely indicate a much narrower class of people. Perhaps along the lines of the lesbians in the S.C.U.M. camp (Society For Cutting Up Men, google if you don't know it.) I think there we have an example of "homosexual extremism" that most on DU would not object to critiquing.

Criticising atheists who are as bigotted as fundamentalists about their views (and such, if I understand it, was the intent of the article) is a very different thing from criticising atheists or atheism in general - a distinction that some here seem keen to lose, in their rush to victimhood!

[Taxloss]

67. Let me clarify one thing:

I know that there are bigoted atheists, who regard believers as idiots or worse. But there are some big differences between them and bigoted believers.

For a start, atheists favour (in the most part) free thought - freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Atheists, even atheist bigots, will not force their absence of belief on others - the notion is absurd. Fundamentalist believers sincerely think that I will be tortured for all time, and that I deserve to be. An atheist "fundamentalist" might regard a Christian as a deluded moron. That is a strong qualitative difference. Fundamentalist Christians are organised into massively powerful lobbying organisations on all levels. Atheists are not, and likely never will be, because organisation runs contrary to the freedom notion in atheism. If you come across an atheist bigot, you have just met an arsehole, and individual. If you come across a fundamentalist Christian, you have just met a member of one of the best-organised and strongly resourced reactionary movements of all time.

And, as I said above, the "rush to victimhood" might be closer to the truth than you expect. Atheists and homosexuals are the canaries in the American theocratic mineshaft - the ones who smell the gas first. "Godless" is already considered a term of abuse, and is coming back into fashion.

And just you watch. If the right becomes yet more homophobic, fellow-travellers like Raw Story will rush to stuff the gays back into the closet just like that. We've seen the tactic now. Sure, they'll say they're only targeting "extremists". But the message will be clear - sit down, and shut up.

[Misunderestimator]

71. Really good post, taxloss!

:hi:

[Taxloss]

75. Thanks.

:hi:

[Chovexani]

84. This deserves to be its own thread

I'm not an atheist but I'm on their side on this issue. There are some so-called progressives who feel Pagans make the movement look bad too, after all.

I'm not understanding the gnashing of teeth about bigoted atheists lately. There's not that many of them and they have no power, not compared to the bigoted fundies. So why are people expending energy on them?

My belief system would look ridiculous to any outsider who examines it. I'm a big girl, if you want to call my religion fantasy I don't give a shit, I roll with the punches and go on about my way. Meanwhile I am focused on the real, actual menace--fundie "Christian" whackjobs.

[entanglement]

89. Right on! There's a *huge* imbalance of power between the two

sides.

[evermind]

92. Again, you're mixing up the atheists and the bigots!

"Atheists, even atheist bigots, will not force their absence of belief on others - the notion is absurd."

- You don't read much USENET, I take it? ;-)

More seriously, I think you're forgetting that that particular experiment has been made, with some lack of absurdity, in communist bloc countries.

As for the differences with fundamentalist Christianity, I agree on all points. But let it be said that the qualitative differences you point out are well matched in the abundance and strength of material condemning fundamentalist Christianity, as contrasted with the lack of such along the lines of the RS article, and its relative mildness. While fundamentalist Christianity is a major world problem, fundamentalist atheism is more a problem for the credibility of atheism and, to some extent, the left in general.

I think condemning Raw Story as a "fellow traveller" of the Christian Right is laughable, if it's done on the basis of that article.

"Sure, they'll say they're only targetting 'extremists'"

- Eh? You really *do* take the article as an attack on atheism in general? I certainly didn't, and I'm an atheist myself! Certainly, there's nothing in the article that is inimicable to atheism, per se. It is simply a call for less philosophically naff atheism, on the basis that the stupid arguments and statements made by *fanatical* atheists are damaging to those causes with which they're associated.

"The message will be clear"

- Predicted any good byelection results recently, Mr Futurologist? ;-) Forgive my skepticism of your powers of punditry! ;-) ;-)

[Taxloss]

95. The article IS an attack on atheists in general.

It suggests that we are extremists if we do not express doubt about our absence of belief. Well, believers aren't obliged to continually express doubts over their beliefs, why the double standard?

And frankly the attack on fundamentalist Christianity by the American left has been lacklustre to say the least, so to suggest equivalence of position and response is absurd.

And your suggestion that "fundamentalist" atheism (an impossibility - atheism has no fundamentals) is "a problem for the credibility of atheism and, to some extent, the left in general" is absurd. What "credibility"? Atheism is about freedom, choice. Do you drive past billboards saying "Be an atheist or suffer the consequences"? No. You drive past ones saying "Jesus saves". Same thing. And exactly why do we pose a "problem" for the left? Because we're not similar enough to the right?

The message of the RS article was clear: sit down, shut up.

[evermind]

98. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

Can you quote from it anything in support of your statement that "it suggests we are extremists if we do not express doubt about our absence of belief"?

What it *is* saying is that there is no *proof* of atheism. An entirely different proposition.

It lists five "outrageous claims":

1) atheism is philosophically provable

2) existence is limited to the scientifically measurable

3) all religion is oppressive

4) the eradication of religion will bring about utopia

5) all religious people are offensively evangelical.

It condemns these claims, and those atheists who do the claiming, as in need of "standing up against".

As an atheist, I see nothing in those claims that I agree with. The only one that would even give me pause is number 2. It is widely, though far from universally, held as a philosophical position, but it is far from being a self-evident truth. (The "quantumbabble" given in the article supporting it, I find unconvincing. I have my own reasons for disagreeing with it, that I won't bore you with.)

The message of the article that I received was simply one of: "let's not stand for sloppy, reactionary responses to fundamentalism, because they will only cause trouble down the line". Quite a long way away from your "sit down, shut up" version.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. The 'atheist' that picture paints is about as extreme as a church goer

Atheism isn't provable using formal logic, but it is provable to the standard required in a court of law, or science. All religion does mean accepting other people's rules on morality, and sometimes much more. Barton never gives an example of anyone saying getting rid of religion will bring about utopia - by she points out that some marxists and anarchists think it is necessary (great, so this is actually meant to be a call for a purge from marxist circles, not progressives? If so, then the whole article is irrelevant to DU). Barton's number 5 claim was not just about 'offensive' evangelicalism - it talked about wanting to convince people to believe the same. That's true not just of relgion, but politics too.

You may not agree with the claims, but that doesn't make them 'outrageous'. And it certainly doesn't give a licence for those making them to be called a threat to ideals of freedom and liberty. And Barton's argument that since the majority of the USA believe in a god, 'extreme' atheists should be shut up to help get votes is hateful. Read the last 2 paragraphs of her screed again. It's Joe McCarthy all over again.

[evermind]

121. For sufficiently extremist values of "churchgoer", yes! :)

I'll take your points one by one.

Atheism isn't provable using formal logic, but it is provable to the standard required in a court of law, or science.

I disagree. What I would agree with is that "reasonable doubt" about the truth of religion is demonstrable. It's difficult indeed to prove a negative, in philosophy, science, or in court. How would you prove the atheist point of view in court? (Do you think that if you did this, the custom of swearing on the bible might change? ;-) )

All religion does mean accepting other people's rules on morality, and sometimes much more.

I take it this relates to, and is intended to establish the reasonableness of claim #3 "all religion is oppressive"? But participation in a society (even a secular society) means "accepting other people's rules on morality". Does that mean all societies are oppressive? I think not. Being a child growing up means "accepting other people's rules on morality". Does that mean all parents/schools are oppressive? I doubt it.

Barton never gives an example of anyone saying getting rid of religion will bring about utopia - by she points out that some marxists and anarchists think it is necessary

It's quite obvious to me that a society that doesn't allow freedom of religious belief is not a utopia. Do you disagree?

Barton's number 5 claim was not just about 'offensive' evangelicalism - it talked about wanting to convince people to believe the same. That's true not just of relgion, but politics too.

Actually, it used the words "force", "convince", and "coerce". I agree that "convince" is badly chosen (though I think the context you omitted makes the intent of the claim clear.) Bearing that context in mind, is it not outrageous to suggest that all religious people (but not atheists!) want to coerce and force their views on the world? Outrageous or not, it's hardly born out by the facts. Which is not to deny that a significant minority of religionists do wish to so coerce us. A much more reasonable claim, I think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. Courts would not accept a miracle as an explanation

Nor do they accept hearsay, such as the Bible or other holy books. A court would never entertain conjecture with no evidence at all, such as an afterlife or reincarnation. There is no way to challenged atheism with "reasonable doubt" without resorting to the supernatural - which a court would not accept, and neither would science, or a 'leap of faith' - again, not acceptable in law or science. And any court in a civilised state allows people to affirm they will tell the truth, without involving religious oaths. If you're currently living in a theocracy where you are forced to swear on some holy book, you have my sympathy. :-)

If you participate in a democracy, you get a say in the society's rules of morality. Religion is like an authoritarian state - someone else is in charge, and tells you what's right. They are both oppressive. Yes, I'd say all schools are oppressive too, and parents. They lay down rules that free individuals in society aren't forced to follow. We generally agree that children aren't yet mature enough to have total freedom, and they don't have all the rights of adults. Religion, too, treats its followers like children - sometimes explicitly.

As I said, Barton's 4th argument (a) only aims at marxists and anarchists (b) distorts their views anyway (they do not say that all we need to do is abolish religion; but her argument, using the story of Adam and Eve, is that utopia is unreachable - therefore, she says, the claim that abolishing religion would achieve utopia is 'outrageous'). If this means that her argument is, in fact, completely irrelevant, then fine - there's no such thing as an extremist atheist, her call for a purge is pointless, and we can all go home, ignoring her as a useless columnist. That doesn't excuse the insults the editor then threw at people who said her arguments were strawmen. The problem is that without people claiming exactly what she wrote, those who claim something close, such as "the world would be a better place without religion", get tarred with her brush instead. For me, a utopia would be somewhere that no-one needed to invent a religion (as well as much more, of course).

Number 5: yes, that's why I said "not just about". You mean that if we changed Barton's argument to something else, it might make sense? Great.

No, I meant "as extreme as any church goer". For instance, 40% of respondents to a DU poll say they absolutely believe in a supernatural or higher power in the universe. I think that is as extreme as anyone who believes the first 2 of Barton's claims; and church goers will have beliefs such as "for a perfect world, everyone should accept Jesus as divine", or "we must accept what the church says on morality". That basically means they have equivalent views (or would be one of the 'convincers' of number 5). I would never call them 'whackjobs' for that, not would I want them purged from the left. Have you any comments on those last 2 paragraphs of Barton's?

[evermind]

148. So.. you're saying you *couldn't* prove atheism in court..

because it would take a miracle to do so? ;-) ;-)

Actually, you're straw-manning me a bit here, because I agree that you can't prove a religious thesis in court. Failure to prove one thing does not amount to proof of its opposite, in court or anywhere else.

You talk about challenging atheism with reasonable doubt, but I was talking about challenging religion with reasonable doubt. One would only have to point to the utter lack of evidence for whatever religious claims were in question.

Your explanation as to how you would prove atheism is notably absent. (Regards swearing on bibles, it was a joke, but I did say "custom" not "requirement". ;-P )

We generally agree that children aren't yet mature enough to have total freedom, and they don't have all the rights of adults. Religion, too, treats its followers like children - sometimes explicitly.

I'm surprised if you think adults are "mature enough to have total freedom". Society, like religion, treats its members somewhat like children (in the sense that I mean). That is to say we have courts, laws, police, and prisons. We are very far from "total freedom", and (you might even agree) that's probably for the best. The fact is that even with the restrictions on freedom that we do have, people still insist on doing things that are just terrible. Do you think that if we removed those restrictions, people would just grow up in Utopian fashion, and we'd all realise we never needed them? Call it "oppression" if you want, but there's no getting away from the fact that membership of society requires people to accept moral values that they (in at least some cases) do not hold themselves.

About the 4th "outrageous claim" - I don't claim to follow your intricate line of thought on that. All I'm saying is that it's outrageous because obviously false. Even if no-one "needed" to invent a religion in your utopia, the claim would imply that if they did so anyway, then that religion would be proscribed. This just obviously is not a Utopia!

Regards #5 - what I'm saying is that you're twisting what she (albeit clumsily) actually said. I think the context of "coerce" and "force" makes it clear that she's talking about "convincing" that goes a little beyond debating society discussion.

About the 40%: No. What would be "as extreme" would be people who claimed that their beliefs were a matter of demonstrable proof or (more likely in the case of religious extremists) a matter of their own direct personal knowledge, and that anyone who disagreed was some kind of lunatic. It's not about the belief, it's about the attitudes surrounding that belief.

The last two paragraphs: My comments would be that I disagree, as does Barton, with the French laws forbidding religious dress in schools, for example, and that I agree that such laws do violate personal liberty. I also agree that bad arguments, made with arrogant conviction, coupled with personal abuse, do no credit either to the cause they are stated in support of, or to the forum in which they are stated, and make both into easier targets for those lacking integrity who want to exploit any detail to portray them in a bad light.

So I agree that "bad atheism" does no favours to those battling against the myth-making and religious manipulation that constitutes much of contemporary US-ian politics. I wouldn't go so far as the author does, to state that the success of the progressive movement "depends on" disavowing fundy atheism - I hope it can succeed without that, since judging by the responses here, disavowal is a distant hope, but I think it could help a little, sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. Atheism can throw reasonable doubt on religion

Religion can't throw reasonable doubt on atheism. Reasonable doubt involves some relevance to actual reality, and none of religion's claims stand up to that. Describe the world, and you won't include any deity. Physics, biology maths and the rest do it without resort to god. That, surely, is a proof of atheism, to court standards, if no opposing evidence, that a court would accept, can be found.

Call it "oppression" if you want - so does that mean it's not such an outrageous argument? We appear to be able to argue this between ourselves without thinking each other extreme, so I'd say the argument is tenable.

For the 4th argument:
a) No-one seems able to find someone who is calling for religion to be banned. Enver Hoxha did, in Stalinist Albania, but he's dead.
b) No-one says the end of religion (voluntary or forced) would, on its own, bring about a utopia. Barton claims they do: "In some interpretations of these systems of thought, false though they may be, the eradication of religion is thought to be sufficient to create utopia." She never says who says this. Hoxha didn't - he had other ideas too.
c) Barton doesn't say in the essay that all 5 of the claims have to be held to be an 'extremist atheist' - she says these some of the major claims. So this is a claim that no-one seems to make - yes, perhaps it is indeed 'outrageous', but if it is never made, why talk about it? I think it's because she wants to damn those whose say something close - that the end of religion would make the world a better place. But she never argues against that, but against her strawman.

5: We appear to be getting down to deciding on the emphasis we can read into the words, depending on how we interpret 'or'. Does this mean we've both stopped regarding the claim as 'outrageous'?

"people who claimed that ... anyone who disagreed was some kind of lunatic" - I'd agree that would be someone worth arguing against, but I don't see Barton saying that was a part of her definition of 'extremist'. For her, an extreme atheist is one who thinks themselves "intellectually and ethically superior". Many religious followers do think themselves ethically superior to those outside their religion. The religions certinaly proclaim themselves as superior. Maybe it's the claim of intellectual superiority it comes down to. I certainly feel I've used my intellect more, on the subject of religion, than the vast majority of the huge numbers of people who follow the same religion as their parents, and I think most atheists have too. I don't think that saying that should form part of an argument for progressive values, though, and I don't think I've seen put forward like that (there are right wing atheists too - it's not as if any atheist must be left wing). But Barton claims ther are such people, and claims that extremist atheists threaten liberal ideals. I think her examples of 'claims of extreme atheists' pull in many people who threaten nothing at all - they are just making philosophical arguments. But she thinks a witch hunt of some sort is necessary, and tries to justify it with talk of what the majority believes. It may bear more of a resemblance to the original ones than the 1950s anti-communist ones did.

[evermind]

221. If you read my post, that's what *I said* dude ;)

Quoting myself:

"I disagree [that atheism can be proved in court] What I would agree with is that "reasonable doubt" about the truth of religion is demonstrable."

Proving "reasonable doubt" for religion is not the same thing *at all* as proving the case *for* atheism, as I've already said. That would mean proving atheism is true "beyond reasonable doubt".

You seem to have got the idea from somewhere that I'm saying the truth of religion is somehow provable in a courtroom situation. I don't see how, since I plainly said: "I was talking about challenging religion with reasonable doubt. One would only have to point to the utter lack of evidence for whatever religious claims were in question."

Straw man city, dude! :)

Next: you quote me saying "call it oppression if you want", and ask if I therefore regard it as an outrageous claim that all religions (or, according to my parallel argument, all societies) are oppressive. Yes, it's outrageous. My argument shows, I think, that the claim that all religions are oppressive, based on the notion that they require acceptance of moral codes, would at the same stroke condemn all societies (indeed, the very idea of a society, as we know it) as oppressive. Clearly, that's nonsense, and outrageous nonsense at that.

Next: you claim that "No-one seems able to find someone who is calling for religion to be banned."

http://bloggy.com/mt/archives/000424.html

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion/browse_thread/thread/9c16a47dbc3b4f14/9673150dcf071e00?lnk=st&q=ban-religion&rnum=1#9673150dcf071e00

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics/msg/8e394101000d114b?dmode=source

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/msg/0589049038b1315b?dmode=source

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/9f49e788da087dc9/835a6a29840d7293?lnk=st&q=ban-religion&rnum=11

http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/msg/9832c19d44cf0f3f?as_umsgid=uFILf.1200$dg.878@clgrps13

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion/msg/96ad3128b0167b86?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.bush/browse_thread/thread/dfab1f7dfd077e20/eae29644297835ec?lnk=st&q=%22ban+all+religion%22+-SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim&rnum=1

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/fb0bda242c3db1f7?dmode=source

That's just a 5 minute search on usenet. Who knows what I might find if I *really* looked! :)

Ah, I've wasted enough time on this already.. very briefly, now.

Re #5. Is it outrageous to claim that all religious people want to coerce, convince, or force people to agree with them? Well, I think it's an outrageous claim, you don't think it is. :shrug:

Any comments about my comments about the final two paragraphs? Nothing in them I can see calls for anything like a witch-hunt. They call for disavowal of extremist views.

Do I agree with everything in the article, and the way it's said? Hardly. I see the broad tendency that the article attempts to depict, and I think the point it's *trying* to make is worth making. It could be written more clearly, it could be better argued, it could be better researched. But it seems to me very far from the sort of witch-hunt / hit-piece that people here are taking it for. That just looks to me like a massive distortion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

238. No, I'm saying atheism can be proved in a court

because we can explain the universe without using gods, and there is no admissible evidence that points to gods. A universe without gods is the only explanation we have. That's not what you said (you thought I was saying you couldn't prove atheism in court), and it's not a strawman - it's my argument.

I made a clear distinction between a democracy, where we get a say in our rules, and authoritarianism, where we don't. No, it's not all societies. Go back and think through this again.

Great, a blogger (political affiliation?) and usenet people makes some posts including "ban religion". Are they serious propositions? Or just bits of "oh, for fuck's sake, look at this bit of idiocy, let's ban all relgiion" outcries? They look like the latter to me.

The witch finder accuses us of threatening liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, warns we'll be dangerous if we get hold of "the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives", says we pose a danger "to the integrity and success of progressive movements", says we are a threat to the success of the liberal movement, and are perpetuating fallacies in its name - all paranoid nonsense. She might as well call us the Illuminati and have doen with it.

[evermind]

246. You're saying it, but you haven't shown it.

Explaining the universe without using gods is not sufficient to prove they don't exist... I can explain your post without using the hypothesis of you being a CIA plant, trying to destabilise the forum. The fact that I can do so doesn't prove that you aren't such a plant (and, of course, neither does it prove you are!)

Let me say it once more: failure to prove one point of view does not entail proof of the opposing point of view. It *may* merely engender uncertainty.

As for "you thought I was saying you couldn't prove atheism in court" - WHAT?! When I quoted you saying "Atheism ... is provable to the standard required in a court of law" and asked you "How would you prove the atheist point of view in court?" (see post #121) how do you construct that as me thinking you were denying atheism could be proved in court? Are we even reading the same thread?! On the other hand, you have spent a lot of time arguing (apparently) against someone who thought either religion could be proven, or atheism disproven, in court, and mistaking that person for me. I have said no such thing, as you will discover if you re-read my posts.

The examples I posted were just a smattering of what's available - all obtained in 5 minutes of searching USENET for "ban religion". If you don't spend much time around USENET, or places like, say, slashdot (another likely source of such opinions) you maybe haven't been exposed much to the sort of thing I take it the author of the article is talking about. I have. Believe it: there's a *lot* of that kind of material out there, and some of it is quite serious in intent.

The "witch finder" (as you insist on (mis)characterising the author) is "accusing us" only if "we" are the sort of fanatics she's talking about. I'm not such a fanatic (though I am an atheist) and I don't believe you are. So "we" are not the accused. You seem to be responding to an article from your imagination, not the one I read on the web. The latter is a not-so-well-written plea for better reasoning, less arrogance, and a more liberal outlook from atheists. The one you are responding to equates atheists with the illuminati, and ... what? demands they all be put in camps? send them in for reprogramming? I don't know - it's *your* imagination!

Have fun with it!

[muriel_volestrangler]

257. I am one of the accused

I think she aims squarely at people like me who say "there is no god, and here's why I think that. We'd be better off without religion". So if you just think she didn't express herself well, but that her message was basically right, you better stop talking to me, because I'm the one threatening the integrity and success of liberalism. Take her advice - stand against me, disavow me as a voice of the left, stop me perpetuating fallacies in your name, and wake up to the danger I pose to you, before it's too late. On the other hand, since you know Britain (I'm not sure if you're here at the moment), you can reflect that it's possible to hold these views Barton claims are 'extreme' without threatening freedom in any way. The difference may be that in Britain there aren't all the religious people the left thinks it has to lure by suppressing any minorities already on its side.

I'll sign off with this: "bad arguments, made with arrogant conviction, coupled with personal abuse, do no credit either to the cause they are stated in support of, or to the forum in which they are stated". That's exactly what I feel about Barton's column. She did no credit to Raw Story, and the arrogance of Walker, when he told his readers who complained to sod off, sealed it.

[evermind]

275. Not really, because

you can put your point of view without descending into personal abuse. You just want her to be gunning for you, it seems to me ;-)

Superb touche in your parting shot, though. I've no answer to that!

[Taxloss]

161. Quite easily done:

"The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter."

Here, the author conflates certainty in the "inerrancy" of atheism with virulent opposition to religion, an entirely false thesis. The message is clear - to be a "good" atheist, you must suspect that you might be wrong. This standard does not apply to theists for some reason. Indeed, "absolute certainty in the inerrancy" of whatever religion is heralded as a good thing in the media and political society - devout, deeply principled, etc.

As for the "outrageous claims", they are mostly the product of the author's imagination.

1. Most atheists are educated enough to know that it is impossible to prove a negative of this sort. I have never once come across an atheist who claims that atheism is "provable" - but there are many who would like to see some evidence for the outrageous claims made by religion. (Eternal life, miracles, etc.)

2. It is measurable. Science is the study of the world as we observe it, not the world as we believe it or as we think it should be.

3. Some atheists do think that. Religion, frankly, can no longer coast by on respect, it needs to pony up deliverables. And its PR stinks right now.

4. I have never heard this position expressed. For a start, atheists take issue with the religious notion of the perfectibility of man, a route to certain misery and tyranny.

5. Religious people need to be aware how overwhelmingly religious society is.

The tone of the article made the message clear to me, at least.

[Inland]

189. Pony up, indeed.

You say,

"Religion, frankly, can no longer coast by on respect, it needs to pony up deliverables."

Athiests and atheism, frankly, can no longer coast by on the disrepectability of some religion. It needs to pony up deliverables.

[trotsky]

204. Deliver on what?

What exactly does atheism promise, Inland?

About all atheism can offer is a starting point: Look, fellow humans, no sky-daddy is gonna bail us out or make everything right in the end. We have to get on the same page and solve our own problems without regard to what an imagined deity thinks of the proposed solutions.

If atheism hasn't been able to "pony up" that deliverable, it sure isn't from lack of trying.

[Inland]

213. Exactly.

I mean, that's exactly the question.

Defining the promise and goals of atheism as "none"--besides atheism itself--would mean that there can't be any criticism or congratulation with regards to goals, or as to delivering on its promise, or as to accusation of hypocrisy in betraying ideals. There simply isn't any such concept that relates to atheism. If that's all you want, well, that's all there is.

Well, that's that.

[trotsky]

216. Then what the hell was your point?

That it's not fair for atheists to critique religion for failing to deliver on ITS promises, because no one can return the favor on atheism?

Boo frickin' hoo.

[Inland]

219. Exactly, again.

Your point is to make it so that nobody can criticize atheism for it just IS. It can't be criticized on failing it's promises, because it has no promise. It can't be criticized for not meeting it's own ideals, because it has no ideals. It can't be criticized for not delivering, because it is not supposed to deliver anything. You think you win, and maybe for purposes of the tit for tat of an internet board where points are scored by sneers and sarcastic references, you have.

But at the same time, you don't realize that people really aren't enchanted with "isms" that begin and end with themselves, that have no goals, ideals, morals, and don't deliver anything except itself. People rightly confuse that sort of position with a form of nihilism. You say you have a starting point. Where's the second step? When's the second step?

Well, if you take the second step, suddenly you've made promises and have ideals and are asked to deliver. And then, somebody might be able to score points on you on DU by showing atheists that don't measure up and a failure to deliver. So I don't expect it any time soon, to say the least.

But until it happens, I think somebody should give the religious props on trying, no matter how badly they failed, and explicitly recognize that failure is part of the price for trying and success based on refusal to make the attempt isn't admirable.

[trotsky]

224. Excuse me while I savor the irony.

You, Inland, who goes to great lengths to avoid making any significant statement of your own but instead exist mainly to bash other views, are bashing atheists BECAUSE atheism doesn't make a statement of its own.

:rofl:

Well, if you take the second step, suddenly you've made promises and have ideals and are asked to deliver.

Interestingly, I think that second step was taken when the U.S. declared its independence. The world's first liberal, SECULAR democracy was formed. A bunch of enlightened thinkers got together and proceeded with what they thought was best, not with what they thought would please a god and/or his representatives on earth.

There's your second step, Inland. You're living in it. Too bad the religious are fucking it up, eh?

[Inland]

229. And not surprisingly, you try to ride somebody else's horse.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say both that atheism promises nothing and then cherry pick someone else's values and history and just call them atheist.

EG, The United States wasn't born an atheist country, and it's not surprising that you confuse a government without an established religion with atheism--because it's all you have. Not having an actual atheist creed, you substitute the closest good thing that you can find, namely, the legal code that protects people without creeds, as well as poeple who do. A nation that promises criminals a trial by jury is not a nation that is criminal.

Or you pretend that atheism is the same as "enlightened thinkers." Suddenly, atheism promised nothing, has no ideals, no goals, no standards......and out of it came the cherished ideals of democracy. It's a miracle. Oh, except the slavery part. That part was the religious part. Yes, the good part was the atheism and then, later, the serpent appeared and offered the apple of religion....oh, sorry, wrong made up story. Your made up story on how evil entered the US is so much more, more, more....uh....recent.

My guess is that there was probably something else going on, some people who actually had taken a second step, developed some moral codes and right and wrong type of stuff and pledged their lives, honor and whatnot on it. Gee, how can we tell? I suppose you could read what they wrote.

No, they actually had the courage to define a set of ideals and positive values and act on them. They weren't simply trying to score points on the english on DU, though. They were actually working for better lives.....like many religious....thinking about what is right and acting on it. I give them props for the effort. You don't: you just steal it and make it your own. Sad that.

Let us know when you can do better than cherry picking someone else's ideas and history. Or rather, let us know when you will provide attribution.

[trotsky]

236. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways, Inland.

You bash atheism because it offers nothing.

I admit that it offers nothing but a starting place, and point to some of the things we've accomplished without religion.

Then you bash that, because it wasn't because of atheism. When I already admitted as such!

There's really no point in discussing this with you, because you have chosen to hate atheism and bash atheists and you'll latch onto whatever reason you can invent in order to settle your own personal cosmic beef with whoever you're trying to put down.:crazy:

[Inland]

282. Sure, I just hate whatever it is you adhere to. Sure.

Really, isn't that the value of YOUR atheism to YOU? It lets you define who's on your team and who isn't, gives you a ready made basis to bash and insult, and an instant reason to praise yourself. Hey, I see the same thing amoung Steelers fans. And intolerant religious.

But the rest of us....yeah, we really don't care all that much about your colors. There's not enough substance about your "ism" to hate. Have you thought of beefing it up with some Stalinism? PUtting some there, there? Or does it flatter you to think that not believing in a diety puts you in some sort of vanguard?

Now, your superior and hostile attitude, and constant attempt to divide the camp of the left on the basis of your granfalloon, yeah, well....

[trotsky]

318. More insinuation and assignment of motives.

Really, that's all your posts amount to. You bash atheism for in and of itself contributing nothing, and then you go and show exactly what it means to contribute nothing. Go settle your cosmic beef with another atheist. I'm not biting.

[Inland]

370. Exactly. Again.

You're not biting, are you: I point out that your atheism has no goals, no promise, no there there, and you just plain refuse to be "incited" into having any.

Exactly. My point all along. You can have THAT victory, I guess. if not for the double standards (such as saying I hate atheists and yet, I'm assigning motives) you wouldn't have anything at all.

That's that.

On edit: see no. 314 for another example of someone "winning" a debate by noting that atheism is nothing.

[evermind]

235. Facile, maybe, not so easy.

You claim "the author conflates certainty ... with virulent opposition to religion". Not at all. If you read the sentence (see the words "and", and "that" in there) the author is claiming that the mark of the "whackjob" is that "he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defence" of atheism against religion, and that the combination of virulent opposition and absolute certainty is what can cause the latter. ("so absolutely certain ... and so virulently opposed ... that he will latch on ...") If one is requiring a conjunction of two factors to produce a result, one can hardly be accused of conflating the two factors in question!

The "message" you are hearing, I'm afraid, seems to originate with your own imagination.

The claims:

1) You say: "Most atheists are educated enough to know that it is impossible to prove a negative of this sort." - That "most" is kind of the point, isn't it? The article concerns the minority who are not included in "most atheists". Exactly.

2) You say: "it is measurable". I'm not sure what the "it" refers to ("existence", perhaps?) but as I said, I think this one is a philosophically arguable position. What is apparent to me, though, is that it is a philosophical thesis which requires long, detailed, argument in support of it. It is the conclusion of such an argument, and not a premise, It is very far from a self-evident premise. (When was the last time the funny feelings you were having as you went to sleep were scientifically measurable, for example? But you still had them, didn't you?)

3) You say: "some atheists do think that" (all religion is oppressive). Please see the argument I gave in response to Muriel up above ^^ there..

4) Again, see some of the examples I posted up above in response to Muriel. Remember, we're not talking about the sort of athiests who write well-considered opinion pieces in sunday supplements, or present programmes on TV - we're talking about grass-roots atheism, as practiced in the dingy grottos of Internet chatrooms and blogs.

5) You say: "religious people need to be aware how overwhelmingly religious society is". Quite how this relates to the article's "outrageous claim" #5 ("All religious people offensively proseletyse") I don't know. It seems to have no bearing on it whatsoever, since the "outrageous claim" is a huge generalisation about the evangelising of religious types, and your statement is about religious trappings of society. :shrug:

[Inland]

185. I'd like to know where all that came from.

True, I'm sure that atheists will say they favor freedom of thought and religion, as most really, really small minorities do, for their own self interests, but there's nothing about atheism that means a liberal or tolerant mien. Seems to me that in those few instances that atheists got power, the minority rights concepts went RIGHT out the window. Like the puritans, atheists may be looking to escape a tyrannical government to set up their own tyrannical government, with different tyrants. Because atheist is, as is beaten to fricken DEATH in R/T, defined as not believing in a deity, not defined as being nice liberal tolerant or rational.

So atheists, like christians, have to show where they stand. Even minorities have to show respect for rights of individuals, even those of the majority.

[ScreamingMeemie]

271. Homosexuals yes...Atheists no.

I'm sorry, I cannot pair together a group that is just as firm in their non belief as the religious are in their belief with an entire segment of our population that is currently being denied their basic human rights to live, love, and be treated as equals. That doesn't wash.

Again, we take the beliefs and ideals of a few and enlarge them. It's wrong...so many kinds of wrong.


***and yes, atheists have and will force their non belief on others...in the form of ridicule. Both sides of the religion issue give as good as they get. I've never had much use for whining Christians...or whining Atheists.

[jus_the_facts]

290. that's exactly why I don't want to be LABLED anything at all.....

....in regard to religion or lack thereof...why can't we just BE instead of classified as one thing or another in every aspect of our lives?! :eyes:

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

320. Excellent jus!

:hi:

Why can't we? After all, I think every person on this thread could find some reason to feel persecuted. To start off, we're all traitors...right? ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

296. I don't know a SINGLE atheist whose *political* agenda goes beyond

"believe whatever you want, just leave me, my body, the laws of our nation, and my kids' public school OUT of it."

If you want a sampling of the crap we are served on a regular basis, try on this quote from Former Preznit George H.W. Bush for size:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008488.php

George H.W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Know what? We would be VERY thankful if all we were subject to in this society was "ridicule". That, I think, we could handle.

[ScreamingMeemie]

319. I don't need a sampling. My best friend is an atheist. And I married

a man who doesn't believe in God. So, I still don't think the plight of the atheist is anywhere near the plight of the homosexuals. Both sides give as good as they get.

Sorry. We're going to disagree.

[SidDithers]

81. The problem was...

that her article, as she wrote it, included all atheists as extemists. So, she either meant what she wrote, or she's a really bad writer.

Sid

[evermind]

96. Um, where did it do that?

Here's the article: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

Kindly point out where all atheists are included as extremists?

I really don't think it did that.

[Misunderestimator]

99. Right here... very plainly, in the front of the article:

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

She says that "secular" refers to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims. Then she goes on to say that atheists are "secular extremists" ("Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists...") then turns around and says that not all secular extremists (atheists) are atheist extremists. What? Why not just say "Although all secularists are atheists..."? Because her language is designed to be insulting and inflammatory.

Before that she writes "Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism." Putting two and two together, she is most definitely calling all atheists extremists (secular extremists) and by extension, whackjobs.

This article is EXTREMELY insulting to ALL atheists.

-------------------
reposted from my post on the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1007330&mesg_id=1018706

[evermind]

102. See my ready-made response to your other post, below! (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

101. OK, how about this

The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

So the only good atheists are those that don't disbelieve religious/spiritual claims. So basically, the only good atheists are those that aren't really atheists but agnostics. Good atheists = agnostics. Bad atheists = atheists.

Oh, sure, she SAYS "not all atheists are atheist extremists" but what she really means by her definition is what I have said in the previous paragraph.

So, as said above, she either meant what she said or she is a really bad writer. Which one are you defending again?

[Misunderestimator]

106. It's the addition of the word "extremists" after secular that muddies the

issue. I agree with you completely. She is either calling all atheists extremists or she is a very bad writer.

[evermind]

107. You seem to have misunderstood this the same way as

missunderestimator, in post #99.

What she's saying is that:

1) Those who don't believe religious/spiritual claims are secularists.

2) Secularists who are also extremists are atheists.

3) Not all atheists are extremists.

In particular, she's not saying: all secularists are secularist extremists.

Given the choice, then, since both you and missunderestimator have misunderstood this in the same way, I have to go for "bad writer" - indeed, I do think that paragraph could have been clearer, but I think the way it's meant to be taken is quite clear from the rest of the article.

She in no way conflates atheism with agnosticism. What she *does* say is that there is no *proof* that the atheist position is correct, and that therefore atheism is a matter of belief, not knowledge. That is not the same thing as mixing atheism and agnosticism. Atheists *believe* there is no god, agnostics *are uncertain* about the existence of god (some agnostics, indeed, claim that certainty about such is impossible, but that's a different thread..! )

[Misunderestimator]

110. We have *misunderstood* because she intentionally wrote it that way...

or she is a very bad writer. Either way, the article is insulting to all atheists, except apparently, to you and a handful of others.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Well

I don't agree.

Here is the fundamental problem. Atheists do not have "beliefs" about the existance of god. To assume so is to assume that there is a god and we just don't "believe" in it. Atheists are the null hypothesis. If you want to prove there is a god, knock yourself out. I, as an atheist, don't have to prove jack.

Plus it is a fallacy to try and make someone prove a negative.

[SidDithers]

119. Not all Atheists believe there is no god...

just as not all Christians believe that God Hates Fags.

Perhaps you should try doing a bit of research, or maybe even try talking to an atheist, before trying to define what we do or don't "believe".

Sid

[evermind]

122. "A-theism". "Without-god-ism".

You simply can't be an atheist and believe in god! Check a dictionary!

Believe what you like, and call yourself what you like, but ... just don't expect others to call you that!

Good luck!

[SidDithers]

127. Without-god-ism is different from no-god-ism...

You said athiests believe there is no god. That's taking an active "belief" position on the question.

I say that I lack a belief in god, I live my life without belief. That's my a-theism.

Not understanding that difference may be why you seem to not understand why so many atheists are offended by the article.

Sid

[evermind]

132. So is there a god? What do you think?

Your position sounds closer to agnosticism than atheism.

From the dictionary:

a·the·ism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

[SidDithers]

146. What do I think? I have no belief...

one way or the other. I'm perfectly happy living my life, working, raising my kids, cutting the grass, posting at DU, without a god in my life. I don't believe in a god, because there's no evidence for one.

I'm not agnostic - I don't have doubt, or wonder if there is a god. I just don't have belief. I'm godless.

Really, the only time I get worked up is when someone uses descriptions like godless or atheist in a discriminatory or exclusionary fashion, or when someone is using their own religious beliefs and opinions to intrude on my life.

Cheers

Sid

[evermind]

160. "no belief one way or the other" < -- agnostic

dictionary time! :-)

ag·nos·tic

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Note, agnosticism does not require you to be curious about the existence of god.

You fall under definition 2. You're skeptical (you said yourself you have no belief in god, so presumably if I said "There's a god you know!" (something which, in fact, I don't believe, BTW) you'd be skeptical about my statement, right?)

You don't profess "true atheism", because you don't positively believe there is no god. (See the other dictionary definition I posted earlier...)

So you're agnostic.

But by all means carry on calling yourself an atheist in the sense you mean it - if you keep at it long enough, along with other people, it might make it into the dictionary. At which point we'd know what you meant by it! ;-)

[SidDithers]

171. Agnositc vs gnostic is all about knowledge...

atheism vs theism is all about belief.

I guess I could be an agnostic atheist. The way I see it, tho, is that atheism is the null position. Everything else - belief or disbelief - must be learned.

Austin Cline does a better job of distinguishing between weak atheism and strong atheism in his blog at about.com.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

207. You seem to be

a huge Raw Story apologist. I don't need to continue this argument. Pretty funny that most all atheists saw the article as a slam on all atheists. She said it. I don't buy the fact that it is just shitty writing. She is a writer by trade. She gets edited. She should (and does) say what she wants to say. Be and apologist all you want, but Raw Story can bite me. Especially given their wonderful reaction to the fallout.

[SidDithers]

118. To reply to your post, and quote from the article...

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

So, you can have...

Secularists - those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims
Secular extremists - atheists
Atheist extremists - who knows

But at the beginning of the article, before we even get to her definitions, we get:

"Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism."

So, if all extremism is bad, and atheists are secular extremists, atheists are bad too.

And from there, she launches into her strawman agruments, which others have already discussed, and I'm not going to repeat.

Sid

[evermind]

131. Let me draw you a diagram...

Saying that all secular extremists are atheists is not the same thing as saying that all atheists are secular extremists.

      _______________________
      |                     |             ___________________
      |   secularists       |             |                 | 
      |  __________________ |             | Religionists    | 
      |  |                | |             | _____________   |
      |  | atheists       | |             | |Christians |   |
      |  |                | |             | |           |   |
  ----+--+----------------+-+---------------------------+--------
  |   :  :################: :  extremists : : * * * * * :   :   |
  ----+--+ ---------------+-+------------------------------------
      |  |________________| |             | |___________|   |
      |_____________________|             |_________________|
      

Apparent from this diagram: all atheists are secularists, some atheists are extremists. Those in the space I've marked with '#' are the subject of the article. As you can see from the right-hand side of the diagram, not all religionists are christians, and not all christians are extremists (* *), in the same way as (quoting the article) "not all atheists are atheist extremists".

This is the view that I think it is moderately clear the author of the article is putting forward, in the part that you quote.

[Misunderestimator]

138. Interesting though how her muddy writing was interpreted the same way

by many of us.

[SidDithers]

143. Maybe she should have included the diagram in her article...

or consulted you before writing. :)

I see what she may have been trying to say. But I still don't agree with her opinion, or her admonitions in her final 2 paragraphs. To me, it still smacks of "you need to whatch what you say" and "you're either with us or against us".

Sid

[Taxloss]

274. That diagram is very flawed.

The religionist box should be about 12 times the size of the secularist box. The extremist field should be scaled accordingly, taking in maybe 20,000 secularists and about 10,000,000 religionists.

Those are just the figures for the USA, of course.

[evermind]

276. It's not meant to be to scale - only topologically accurate ;-) (n/t)

[smirkymonkey]

289. Actually, she is a really bad writer.

I have no idea as to whether she meant what she said, however.

[Roland99]

69. The reaction to the atheist "whackjob" article is much ado about nothing.

There are extremists of every political and religious persuasion.

[Misunderestimator]

72. But as I pointed out in that thread... she called all atheists extremists.

That's the problem, since most atheists are far from being extreme.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1007330&mesg_id=1018706

[evermind]

100. No, she didn't.

Here's what you posted:

The tone of the article implies that all atheists are whackjobs..

Edited on Tue Apr-25-06 02:03 PM by Misunderestimator
while turning it around inside itself to come off as *not* saying that. Take this paragraph for example:

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

She says that "secular" refers to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims. Then she goes on to say that atheists are "secular extremists" ("Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists...") then turns around and says that not all secular extremists (atheists) are atheist extremists. What? Why not just say "Although all secularists are atheists..."? Because her language is designed to be insulting and inflammatory.

Before that she writes "Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism." Putting two and two together, she is most definitely calling all atheists extremists (secular extremists) and by extension, whackjobs.

This article is EXTREMELY insulting to ALL atheists.

In fact, you've simply not understood what was being said.

You have her saying: (I guess you mean "all") "athiests are secular extremists", but what she actually says is that "all secular extremists are atheists."

Those are quite different. Imagine I say to you "all ducks are birds". Uncontroversial, eh? Now suppose I say: "all birds are ducks". You'd be right in regarding me as some kind of loon.

She is saying "all ducks are birds", but you are interpreting it as "all birds are ducks".

[Misunderestimator]

104. I understand very well what she is saying....

It's the manner in which she says it, which confuses the issue.

"Although all secular extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

This is very muddy to me and implies that atheists are secular extremists, even though technically it is not saying that, as you point out. It would be clearer to say "Although all secularists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists." The way she puts it implies that she considers atheists to be secular extremists.

That's how I read it. Whatever it technically means has little bearing on how it comes across.

[evermind]

109. It could be clearer, I agree. But

the overall meaning of the article is really given by looking at the five specific claims which she says are made by atheist extremists, and which she says are "outrageous". I've listed them in my reply to taxloss, post #98, above.

Perhaps you'll agree that those claims are (on the whole - I have my doubts about #2) pretty outrageous, and worth disagreeing with. I say this as an atheist, for what that's worth :)

[Misunderestimator]

112. How many atheists do you know or know of that believe those things?

It's like writing an entire article about how we must stand against homosexual extremists (to use taxloss' example) by describing all the beliefs of the group you referenced in post #66, S.C.U.M. (Society For Cutting Up Men). How on earth could such a fringe group, members of whom I doubt anyone on this site have ever met or even heard of (myself included), be an issue that needs such analysis as this article gives atheist extremists? I know NO atheists or "atheist extremists" that espouse the beliefs you pointed out in post #98.

What is the purpose of an article that implies that this is a widespread problem (extreme atheism) on the left?

[evermind]

117. Just read some religious controversy threads on USENET

there's plenty of them about.

As for the "homosexual extremists" - what you're missing is that there is an important question of how you define that term. If you take the Fox News definition (as, say, anyone in favour of gay marriage) as the correct one, then the game is already lost because, quite simply, advocating homosexual marriage is not an extremist position.

If you write an article condemning "homosexual extremism", and you want me to take it seriously, let alone agree with it, then you will have to be careful about how you define that term. I suggested adherents of the S.C.U.M. point of view as an example of "homosexual extremists" whose condemnation I would not disagree with. Yes, I have met some people who leaned towards that point of view, and most people acquainted with feminist fringe circles during the mid/late eighties would have done so as well. (Now don't have me saying that anyone on the fringes of feminism in the '80s is a card-carrying SCUMmer! I'm plainly not saying that! ;-) )

I think the author of the piece in question has at least tried to be careful about what she means by "atheist extremism", to the point of offering her five "outrageous claims" as markers of extremism.

It seems to me that, while the article is quite clear about how it is defining the term "atheist extremist", and just what it is condemning, you are seeing it as a blanket attack on atheism because you're using the Pat Robertson (or whoever) definition of that term, and imposing it on the article. But the article quite clearly defines just what it's attacking.

That's not playing fair. You can critique an article for what it says, not what you make it say.

[Misunderestimator]

120. Not so plainly not saying it to me.

LOL! "most people acquainted with feminist fringe circles during the mid/late eighties would have done so as well"... seems to me you are saying MOST people, not anyone, but still... Most people? Really? Many people considered all feminists to be "fringe" in the mid/late eighties... heck... many people have always and still do consider feminists to be "fringe." It's the language again.

I don't think the author was careful or "quite clear" at all. I think she intentionally muddied her language so that she could imply all atheists to be extremists while leaving just enough wiggle room to claim that she was doing nothing of the sort. I don't like to be manipulated in an article, and this one clearly does that.

[evermind]

134. Well, I mean "people acquainted", not the feminists themselves.

And I'm saying "would have met", not "were".

In certain circles (believe it!) that view was out there. Really. No kidding. :)

As for being manipulated, as I've already stated, I consider myself an atheist. Why didn't I read it like you did? Maybe because I'm from the UK, and don't watch TV, and am not subjected to buzzwords like "atheist extremist" by the likes of Pat Robertson as often as you?

What I mean by "careful" and "quite clear" is that the author has set out in the five "outrageous claims" just what she's disagreeing with, so I don't think it's fair to impose on her that she's disagreeing with stuff not included in those five claims, like judiciously held, non-fanatical atheism such as mine, for example.

[Roland99]

133. Care to point out where that article calls all atheists extremists?

I'm an atheist, myself, and I did not take offense with the article. In fact, I rather agree with it. Attention whores like Michael Newdow aren't much better than the Pat Robertsons of the world.

[Misunderestimator]

139. You can read my link, and all my and others' posts that point that out.

It's the vague "secular extremists" = atheists part. But whatever... the article was piss-poorly written and insulting to many of us. That's the bottom line.

[Roland99]

141. Geez...your "logic" is what's poorly formed.

It's been explained to you before.


Not all atheists are secular extremists. What part of that do you not understand?

[Misunderestimator]

145. Ha! My logic is poorly formed!

:rofl:

Read again... I'm not in the mood to rewrite what I've already written. If you don't understand how her muddy references are insulting to atheists, we aren't going to agree. Move on.

[Roland99]

153. Yes, your logic is faulty along with your reading comprehension >>>>>>>

From the article:

"Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist."



That's the same as saying:

"not all Christians are Christian extremists.

The fundamentalist is a special sort of Christian."



Now, by your logic, that would be saying all Christians are extremists which is complete and utter nonsense as it completely distorts the quote.

[Taxloss]

162. According to the article,

to be convinced of the inerrancy of atheism is to be an extremist.

To be convinced of the inerrancy of Christianity is to be a fundamentalist.

See the problem?

[Roland99]

163. And there's nothing wrong with that.

An atheist, me being one, is no more sure that God doesn't exist than a Christian is sure one does exist.

Neither has no way of knowing for sure. But, to be completely arrogant into thinking that one's way is the only way (be it a way with God or without) is a form of extremism.

[Taxloss]

165. I respect the freethought you're expressing,

but to compare arrogant, bigoted atheists to the doctrinaire Christian right is simply wrong.

[Roland99]

168. Why? Because one group represents you and the other doesn't?

Or are you trying to play a relativistic game?

[Misunderestimator]

170. You're simply refusing to read what I wrote...

But I'll indulge you. It's the muddiness of saying "secular extremists are atheists but not all atheists are extremists." The comparison is stupid. "Secularists are atheists but not all atheists are extremists" makes sense... and "secular extremists are atheist extremists" makes sense. To add "extremist" after secular is misleading and implies that secular extremists = atheists = extremists. Technically (like I said in a few posts) that is not what she actually said. It's how it comes across that matters when the writing is that sloppy.

As for your last sentence... if I said "all christian extremists are fundamentalists but not all fundamentalists are extremist" it might come close to a valid comparison of the muddy writing she uses. If I wrote that, I would surely be implying that all fundamentalists are extreme. Of course, they pretty much are, but that's beside the point.

[Roland99]

172. Wow...just.....wow.

I really have no idea how you even begin to consider what you just wrote as any form of rational thought.


I'm completely serious.

[Misunderestimator]

173. Thanks... that's just a testament to your own lack of reason.

:hi:

[Roland99]

175. Uh...yeah...right.

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

176. I see you've resorted to name calling and rolling eyes.

That's really special.

[Roland99]

179. Get off your propped up high horse and stop pretending to be offended.

[Misunderestimator]

180. Pardon me? What on earth are you talking about?

High horse? Pretending to be offended? That article offended me. That's all there is to it. Why do you have an issue with me being offended? That's just weird.

[Roland99]

183. BS! You're TRYING to find a way to be offended so you can spout off

That's all it is and nothing more.


Good day.

[Misunderestimator]

184. Wow. I think you have an anger problem.

[Roland99]

186. *I'm* not the one feigning being offended, am I?

[Misunderestimator]

187. Feigning? Wow. You know...

if you can't understand what I wrote, you might try reading it again, instead of projecting your own frustration onto me. The article offended me. It still does. I'm not sure why you think I'm feigning anything. But this personal shit is way off the subject now, and I'm really not enjoying it. So, go ahead and have the last word. Bye. :hi:

[smirkymonkey]

298. What the hell is a "secular extremist" anyway?

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY believe in the separation of Church and State. }(

[bloom]

322. "secular extremist" - people who lump all religious people together

People who define religious people by the worst among them (that's who I think the whackjobs are). How is that different from defining atheists as the worst among them?

And Sam Harris - who doesn't allow for progressive tolerance. Everyone must hate each other apparently. Yeah - that will fix things. :eyes:



"Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=51467


"I believe religion is the greatest danger to humanity at this time. ...

As far as I am concerned the most popular religions are institutionalized insanity."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55467&mesg_id=55467

[Goblinmonger]

355. Wow

I would have thought that you would come to the aid of your fellow atheists :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

158. How is Michael Newdow an "attention whore"?

Because he's right?- Kids should NOT be forced (and lets be real, it is forced recitation) to recite "Under God" in the pledge, any more than they should be forced to say "Under Buddha", "Under Krishna", or "Under Eris".

I knew that several decades ago, when by age seven I was already only pretending to say those words. I knew it was wrong to force me to "pray" to something I didn't believe in.

[Roland99]

164. No child is "forced" to say "under God"

And to take that to the Supreme Court as some of way of getting to an ex-wife is just....sad.



Ever heard the phrase: Pick your battles wisely

[Goblinmonger]

197. In Wisconsin

we say the pledge EVERY FUCKING DAY. I am a high school teacher. And if you think kids don't know who doesn't say it and talk about those kids all the time, you have been out of high school too long.

I have kids ask me why I don't say "under God" during the pledge (and I am an adult so don't compare me to what we should expect from the average high school student). I only tell them half the truth. I talk about seperation of church and state. I DON'T tell them I am an atheist because most kids (and their parents) could not handle that.

[Roland99]

206. Ok, so you're in agreement. No one is forcing you to say it.

[Goblinmonger]

208. Did you fucking read what I posted

or just look for the part that best supported your side? Yeah, I don't say it. I am 40 years old and a teacher. Do you really think that my experience is the same as a student's? When kids choose not to say the pledge or stand for the anthem, they are ostracized. They are threatened in the hall. They are called fags and asked why they hate our country. They don't really have a choice.

[Roland99]

212. But yet no one is forcing them to say it. So, yes, you are in agreement.

Remember, "stick and stones" and all that.

[Goblinmonger]

214. Yeah,

that's exactly what I said to the kid that came to me and told me that 4 redneck assholes cornered him in the hallway and told him they would "kick his fucking faggot ass" if he continued to sit during the pledge. I just patted him on the shoulder and said "Sticks and stones." He looked me in the eye, got a little teary, and thanked me for making it all better.

[Roland99]

215. But, yet again. No one was *forcing* him to say it.

No one is under threat of arrest, am I correct?

[Goblinmonger]

217. Yes, we are not a fascist nation yet

It is not illegal to not say the pledge. But were you born at age 30? Do you not understand there are other ways to "force" kids to say it. We have faculty members here that make kids stand and say the pledge. That is pretty much forcing.

[Roland99]

222. Well, you obviously have recourse against faculty members, then.

If a kid is being threatened by another kid, well, hell, that's part of life. I was threatened, scoffed, etc. for being a short kid or the smart kid. What do you want to do? Assign monitors to each kid all through the school day?

[Warren DeMontague]

225. Not literally. In reality, in practice, yes, at least when I was a kid

in the midwest lo many years ago, it was most certainly *forced*.

And leaving aside for a moment whether or not we should be 'encouraging' kids to "pledge" to anything, "Under God" was tacked on during the McCarthy era, and doesn't belong there.


Or how about teaching them about the Constitution, instead? For some reason I think most of the Americans left who still know anything about that document got the information, not from public school, but from when they used to air "Schoolhouse Rock" during Saturday morning cartoons. Sad.

[Roland99]

230. I know about the history of the Pledge & I agree "Civics" should return

but the case of taking this to the Supreme Court (Newdow) was just ridiculous.


Yes, "under God" wasn't originally there and I would like to see it removed but I don't see how filing lawsuits and going to the Supreme Court will make a hill of beans of difference other than to paint such actions as, "Oh, that loony left".

Know what I mean?

[Goblinmonger]

233. How else is it going to get removed?

Don't you think the "under God" phrase is just another small step in the creeping theocracy of our country? Do you know how many times I hear people tell me this is a Christian country because we have "under God" in our pledge, have "In God We Trust" on our money, and have "God Bless America" all over the fucking place? We aren't that. Having those things is against the constitution. Having those things is clearly against what Jefferson and Madison and others saw as our government. Yet you want to bad mouth Newdow for actually going to the Supreme Court (the body that is in place to rule on whether things are unconstitutional) and asking them to rule that it is unconstitutional. Yeah, what a bastard he is.

[Roland99]

240. No, I don't think it's another small step in a move to theocracy.

It's been there for 50-odd years and the rise of the pseudo-Christians didn't take hold until the last 20-25 years or so (with much of the "thanks" due to the rise of the neocons).

As for the Constitutionality of "under God" in the pledge, well, that's a tenuous argument at best. I'd be more inclined to focus efforts on pushing ID into schools and a hidden "litmus test" for the appointment of judges.

[Goblinmonger]

242. My argument would be

that the vast increase in theocratic-like movements are a result of what happened in the 50s. It is more flagrant now, but you start walking with baby steps.

[Roland99]

244. You have to remember there was quite a liberal swing in the 60s/70s

The political pendulum is constantly swinging. Granted, it's gotten skewed to the right over the last couple of decades but I blame organizations such as the DLC for that (as well as a sentiment like Ritter lamented recently re: the left: the fractured lack of focus)

[Solon]

234. So I guess lawsuits never solve anything...

Not like Brown vs. Board of Education should have ever took place, I mean, its just another example of the "loony left" after all, isn't it? Hell, there are innumerable cases that are taken up by the Supreme court all the fucking time, and you are saying that a BLATANT OVERT act of Religious discrimination doesn't qualify? :puke:

[Roland99]

241. Nice false analogy.

[Solon]

245. Where's the false analogy?

Let's see, are both lawsuits that went before the Supreme Court? Yes, they were. Did they both concern the civil rights of students? Yes they did. So where is the false analogy again?

[Roland99]

247. Trying to compare segregation to a phrase in the pledge?

Oy vey.

[Solon]

250. How dense are you?

Did I say they were EQUAL, no, let's not play this game, its semantics mostly. Seriously, does it really matter what the severity of an injustice is? Isn't it enough that it is an injustice at all?

[Roland99]

252. OMG! Now you're calling the "under God" phrase an "injustice"???

:rofl:



Jesus Christ!


Molehill ----> Mountain

[Solon]

255. Forcing the recitation of it, either through a de facto process...

or legally IS an injustice, there is no if ands or buts about it. Using the Pledge as a club through peer pressure or fear of persecution IS AN INJUSTICE, period.

[Roland99]

256. Uh, as I've asked before, who is *forcing* anyone to recite it?

[Solon]

258. If I remember correctly, it was state law...

with no "opt out" option, which is problematic itself. Really, would you have as much of a problem with this law if the Jehovah's Witnesses filed suit(which they did, initially, which is why, federally, its NOT required to recite it by everyone). The law was unconstitutional, plain as day, and the pledge itself seems to be something that is itself unconstitutional, you know that whole establishment clause, and all that.

[Roland99]

270. Well, you have recourse in that case, if it really is a state law

Whether "under God" is in there or not, I can't imagine requiring someone to cite any statement in a public school to be constitutional.

[Goblinmonger]

231. I'm just a bill

sittin' here on capital hill.

Though, being an English teacher, I was part to "conjunction junction, what's your function? Hookin' up words and phrases and clauses" and "Lolly Lolly Lolly get your adverbs here."

Oh, the good old days.

[Roland99]

243. And you can relive those good ol' days any time you'd like >>>>>>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JKTY/104-8951264-2566337?v=glance&n=130


:D

[DS1]

195. Hallelujah

[The Backlash Cometh]

57. "Empty wad of meat"

God, I hope Will Pitt doesn't claim copyrights on that one.

I'm a Raw Story supporter. There isn't one media vehicle I have ever been a part of which I've agreed with 100% of the time. I went in knowing RawStory was liberal, and occasionally, I find them, as well as DU, making an issue about something that I know won't resonate with anyone else. But it's rare.

However, there was one strange RawStory thing that did come up that I meant to ask somebody about. Has anyone ever clicked on RawStory and had a sound effect come up with the page? It happened to me a few days back and I could have sworn I heard, "Oh, not you again!" I figured some clever freeper had hacked it.

[Robbie Michaels]

59. Thanks For Posting This, Will

I always check out Raw Story after I get home from work. They always post links to relevant stories that appear in tomorrow's edition (I'm on the West Coast) of The New York Times and other East Coast newspapers as soon as they appear on the web. This allows me to keep abreast of current events before I go to bed so I don't have to pay attention to the fluff the mainstream media processes for our consumption.

I'm not going to let someone's Op/Ed change my opinion. As a matter of fact, I enjoy reading Op/Eds that are well-written regardless of the author's political leanings. Sometimes the author will make a valid point (whether I agree with them or not), and when I read Ann Coulter's column I remind myself not to take her seriously. Her columns are "shock journalism", and if you rail against her, you empower her.

For the record, I like truthout, Raw Story, Buzzflash, and Common Dreams. All four sites do a great job of posting original content and/or links to news stories and Op/Eds I'd otherwise miss.

[annabanana]

62. Thanks Will . . We can't afford to narrow the "us" factor

in the "us" vs "them" to the extent that no one can balance on the beam. We should be able to disagree with the bathwater and not toss the baby... and other colorful imagery...

[Goblinmonger]

202. Interesting choice of words

Don't you think the article in question was trying to narrow the "us" factor to exclude atheists? You don't have a problem with that?

[DemReadingDU]

64. raw story is on my must read list just like truthout and others

I like the teasers and headlines...Let's me know what stories are coming down the road.

[ShortnFiery]

68. Exactly Right!

That's the point I was trying to make in the "flame raw story thread" = Stop trashing our own! We can assist them and help guide them, but YES!

They are on our side and trashing them is IMO, petty and disgusting.

[brindis_desala]

73. Do we need to define the word "RAW" for DUers?

you want elegant lies read the NYTimes.

[trotsky]

78. What if I felt they trashed me?

Am I supposed to cower and say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Fuck that. I'll speak my mind and will not support Raw Story in any way until a formal apology is issued both from the author of the piece as well as the editors of RS.

[Strong Atheist]

83. Nah, what is disgusting is this

SHIT, masquerading as "journalism" and "first amendment rights":

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

Therefore, since the rawstory "editor", and I use the term in the loosest sense, defended this SHIT, and attacked those who were being smeared:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330#1012227

I would have to say that rawstory is a


PIECE OF SHIT YELLOW_DOG RAG

NOT FIT TO WIPE MY ASS WITH

[ShortnFiery]

157. I rest my case

:thumbsdown:

[Goblinmonger]

199. So your solution is what

to lock step with anything that is labeled liberal? Fuck that. I will NOT be a fucking ditto head for the left. The Limbag followers are stupid as shit when they say "megadittos" and I will not be them. Raw Story was wrong here. When pointed out to them, they defended what they did and degraded those that were offended. If that is the best response they have, fuck em.

[smirkymonkey]

291. Stop Trashing Our Own?

Isn't that exactly what Ms. Barton is doing?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. I read RS and Truthout at every opportunity. Thanks, Will.

[rodeodance]

76. They are OK. I do have to occassional check myself-not get too ex-

cited when I see some teasers.

[trotsky]

77. Raw Story may be on your side.

I just don't get the feeling they're on mine. A writer is certainly entitled to their opinion, but would Raw Story have published a piece that was critical of "gay extremists" who want legalized gay marriage? How about a piece from a man who was critical of "feminist extremists"? There can be no doubt that such individuals are costing Democrats votes, but I don't recommend we purge our party or silence those folks from speaking - because what they want is RIGHT. If we as a party can't stand up for what's right, then why do we bother?

Let's not fool ourselves - even an article that took great pains to separate the "extremists" in either of those above groups would be met with severe criticism, and significant outrage, at DU. Instead, it's atheists, and the glee with which some believers jumped on the bandwagon of branding those "atheist whackjobs" (and as the author defined the term, it's anybody who doesn't believe in any religions claims) greatly disturbed me.

[liberalnurse]

82. I have always embraced Raw Story.

That said, the same thing goes for Truth-Out.

I just wanted to share. O8)

Oh, I detest the main stream propaganda 24/7 lies for corporate profiteers.

[newportdadde]

85. The 'teases' usually turn out to be cry wolf nothing.

During the whole Fitzmas deal is when I got turned off from them. Their constant teasing about 'huge story' then when you finally get any detail its an empty box.

[Maddy McCall]

262. LOL. I remember that.

I posted my opinion of them, and one of their "writers" PMd me and blessed me out.

Then, more recently after another BS tease, after other people expressed the same sentiments as me, she feigned illness and talked of "just giving up," which brought out the sympathists, who begged her not to quit and stroked her ego by telling her what an invaluable source Raw Story is.

It was quite funny and revealing about what working with Raw Story must be like.

[sendero]

88. I'm about 90% with you..

... but I wish for "original content" you could have provided a better example than the "athiest" piece. I could write something better than that, taking either side of the argument :)

[NJmaverick]

90. Raw Story is a great site

I have nothing bad to say about it. It provides good balance to the right wing sites like Drudge, only with much more truth.

91. Raw Story is often read here on DU

especially on breaking stories. If you don't like a news source, why not just drop them off of your radar screen. We should support the left leaning news sources, they certainly don't get the big bucks supporting them. They are supported by the independent readers.

[stop the bleeding]

93. Yes we are all on the same side .....

"you're an empty wad of meat that serves no intellectual purpose. Allow yourself to be challenged, even offended. You sharpen your claws on the stuff you disagree with. That's a good thing."


So true


Thanks Will

[Chimichurri]

94. Well said.

Believe what you like, but I say before you take the bait - consider the idea that DU is a powerful force where divide and conquer is an effective counter tactic.

Rawstory is on our side handsdown. Why is it that we turn on our true allies with little reason to do so. There are times when it is warranted to question someone's intent - Lieberman and Hillary come to mind. But, IMHO, not in this case. How can we best stand with the few who maintain resolute in their persuit of the truth? If we don't figure out how, we will continue to stand alone in our fight and loose everytime.

[wicket]

103. Well said Will

:yourock:

[Goblinmonger]

105. I agree with Raw Story

Let's get rid of all the whackjobs:

Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

Thomas Jefferson

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

George Washington

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Ben Franklin

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

You know what, on second thought, I'll stick with the whackjobs.

[Misunderestimator]

113. Nice!

:thumbsup:

[Strong Atheist]

152. VERY well done!

:yourock:

[salvorhardin]

159. How f'in dare you!

Quoting those damn secularist (or maybe they're atheist, we haven't made up our minds) extremists!

[Beelzebud]

108. I simply won't ever read anything by that author again.

Raw Story is ok, I just won't give that author the time of day.

Fair enough?

[Sammy Pepys]

114. I'd never heard of Raw Story until coming here....

..but the impression I've gotten is that they're a little too preoccupied in trying to break stories for the sake of being first. Not to say I don't like them or I'm not glad I found them, but they're kind of low on the totem pole in terms of sources I find to be reliable.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. Yeah, they plug like crazy.

And that's why I never read them to begin with.

Gimme Atrios, Tom Tomorrow, Neural Gourmet, and DU any day.

[VolcanoJen]

193. Absolutely.

The biggest problem I have with Raw Story is that they don't obey simple journalism ethics.

It's a little disturbing to spend a half-day clicking on their constantly edited stories. They go back and do rewrites without ever informing their readers.

It's crap journalism and I'm not interested. Atrios and Talking Points Memo are doing something completely different, but they're accurate, and trustworthy, and not quick to jump on adrenaline-pumped rumor-driven bandwagons.

Sure, they're on our side, but misinformation = disservice to our community.

[Maddy McCall]

261. THANK YOU.

Well said, Jen. :thumbsup:

[symbolman]

292. Have I told you and Maddy that I love you today?

It's very simple, and Jen has said it all. No one is mentioning the money aspect of it, the DU is a BANK to some folks (I know, they've funded me for some projects and it's much appreciated - in the old days here we were pounding out the content, and there was plenty of love, less money tho, to go around), and if you can get DUrs to GO NUTS emotionally and suck them over to a page full of ads you are MAKING BUCKS.

And it doesn't have to be real news, just get them riled up, like that editorial, all the blogs start screaming and BOOM, RS gets thousands of hits to see what all the hubub is about. That's pretty big money. Keep them coming back over and over and the corps pay you well, along with blog ads.

It's like there's some sort of psychotic break mixed up in there - a break from reality, proof means that someone else didn't say something so that means that it's a LOCK? I'm serious, I can't believe the rationalization I've heard, just nutty.

I don't like seeing what appears to be people posting a MEDIA OUTLET release, THEN when I get to the thread it's a RS link, that is unethical and as far as I know against the rules.

Like Jen mentioned, you spend a half a day clicking on links and they all go to RS. It wastes my time, I don't WANT to go there, I don't like their site, it's MY CHOICE, and for that reason a person becomes FLAMEBAIT.. You get ATTACKED for NOT liking a site.. If I said I didn't want to go to Buzzflash no one would bat an eyelash, yet if I mention RS, BANG!

But for some reason they don't kill those threads here. In some ways the DU seems to have become RS-lite, and more people here have become abusive, non thinkers, mean.. I'm hoping that it's because the right wing has invaded all these sites and are sowing seeds of discontent, but some of it seems to come from what I call "Rawbots". Those who act like they'd freaking kill you if say one bad thing, any thing against RS. Like instead of fighting the right wing, they'd rather NAIL YOU for not agreeing with an alleged LEFT wing "news service".. Save it for the bad guys, eh?

I haven't seen this kind of upheaval and VENOM spewed on this site since Bev Harris, and the place calmed right down when she was GONE, and golly gee, she went right to the freepers, what a surprise. She'd mined this place and went on to open land, rake in some more bucks.

I really wish that someone would slap some controls on them, or at least make them follow the RULES, go by the Book and I'll shut the hell up.

And then my old friend Will starts repeating a drumbeat message, doesn't write to me personally, PM me and say, "Hey, what's up? You pissed at RS?" - no Will, you PUBLICLY accuse ME of a Vendetta, You Publicly tell ME to "get another Hobby". What has happened to you? You used to be friendly to EVERYONE, and now it's like you SMACK people in the face, wave them away, DISMISS THEM like you sit on a throne. has it gone to your head?

I have bought you BEERS at DU parties when you were dead tired, filmed your comments for an electronic voting film to include and get your name out there, and you tell me to "get another hobby"? I've made dozens of flashes which you have seen, filmed events in HiDEF that YOU spoke at, and I'm just a HOBBYIST?

I want you to come down off the throne and be the guy you were. I'm only hoping that Leopold doesn't take you down if he goes down, that's raw HONESTY and it's about YOU and how YOU are doing.

You want to talk to me about any problems you have with me, then you respect the FIVE YEARS I've put into fighting this admin, and PM me and start a conversation. Don't act like a prick, I know you aren't. I only bring this up because you said this TWICE in public, so I have to defend myself and wonder about you.

You want RS, go for it, enjoy, but do NOT ATTACK me for NOT wanting it. I have the right to disagree, I paid for it during Nam in the Military, and I WILL speak up, I've EARNED IT.

[bloom]

115. I think the "whackjob" article was poorly written.

But I think there is a problem with atheist "whackjobs" - she just didn't explain it very well.

I think it's a problem for the left to have atheists attack any and all religions - including liberal ones (like religions that some atheists support like UU) and that they attack anyone who supports religions in any way, shape, or form.

Not all religions are evil as some like to claim. Nor are people who try to defend liberal religions bigots as some have claimed.

It's one thing to rail against actual discrimination. I think that's more than reasonable. But I think some take their hate too far and when they band together in their ridicule of others - I don't see how they are any different than the people they despise.

It starts to look like the the goal is to drive any liberals away who are not as extreme as them. As others have pointed out from time to time - the net effect will be to alienate many who could be partners.


I think the whackjobs do need to be called out - it's too bad that this writer wasn't the one to do it.

[Strong Atheist]

126. But I think there is a problem with atheist "whackjobs"

Of course you do...

[SidDithers]

135. The problem is that many theists...

see any criticism of the smothering presence of religion in our society as an attack from "atheist whackjobs".

Sid

[smirkymonkey]

295. Hear, hear!

That's really the bottom line, isn't it. These days, simply NOT being a "religious whackjob" is enough to qualify one as an "athiest whackjob."

[WhollyHeretic]

123. Sorry but I don't have to support someone just because they are labeled as

liberal. I'll leave the marching in lockstep to Republicans. I'm not saying they don't mostly present liberal articles but that doesn't mean I'm required to support them when I don't like the way they do things.

[Maddy McCall]

265. This isn't the first "you're with us or you're against us" incidence at DU

Funny, the author above railed against lockstep thinking in one of his previous editorials on DU.

[Carni]

125. I agree

I thought the Athiest opinion piece was stupid and I didn't agree with it,
but that was JMO and they should print anything they want--it's their website.

As to the hyped headlines... I agree they have to do that to compete or people will go elsewhere...a lot of sites who started out all doing the same thing have bitten the dust over the years and the people busting their asses to find those reprinted articles are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts so they should be commended not dissed (they sure aren't being paid to do it in most cases)

People will go to whatever grabs their attention.

[Jack Rabbit]

128. Very well said, Will

!!

[lala_rawraw]

181. Jack, the irony...

You know what I find fascinating? I did not agree with the columnists argument and I said so, but watching the psychotic ganging up that occurred as a result proved her point, as badly argued as it was.

I kept getting asked, what would you do if there were gays and/or Jews and someone wrote that "SOME OF" the people of that group are extremists. My answer was not wanted apparently, but here it is. I myself have pointed to extremists in the Jewish wing, as John Byrne has pointed to extremists in the gay wing. I am Jewish, he is gay - not that this last point should even matter. The reality is that there are extremists in all groups, in all walks of life, in all faiths or non-religious segments. That is how humanity works, there are those who will always be extreme.

The columnist had written about an extremist group within a certain larger context, that is to say, the author was attempting to address SOME atheists who paint everyone of a religious background as "WACKJOBS." There are plenty such posts here at DU to make her point clear, unfortunately, she did not argue her point well, something I have stated over and over until I realized that this gang was not interested in anything other than attacking and smearing while screaming "me, victim."

But here is the real issue of this entire mess, it is not that her point was not argued well, and it certainly was not, but it is that instead of addressing the flaws in her argument, her words were purposefully altered and omitted to make it sound like she said something she did not, that is ALL vs. SOME.

This altered version was posted all over the place and it is to this altered version people began to react. Despite that, the author of the piece issued and apology for not being clear enough and in that apology once again said very clearly SOME, NOT ALL. This was not enough for those altering her text, nor was the editor's note saying the same exact thing enough either. They then went on to write the kind of hate garbage to her and to us that should make our collective souls spin in a dizzy, things like "die bitch" and so forth. Now I ask you, if we look at actions justifying reactions, what did this writer do to justify such violent attacks? Who in this was really the victim, the people who altered her text and then issued forth ugly bile or the person who with good intentions attempted to argue a point, albeit badly?

The author, while arguing her point badly, was not even noticed by the right and those reacting in such an extreme and violent way, provided the evidence and made actual atheists look bad and extreme, when in reality they do not speak for atheism at all, and real atheists should be outraged.

That is really unfortunate, as I have said, I had never thought about extremism on this side of the isle before or too closely, and the author's column did not convince me, but the reaction of those acting like psychos out of Dobson's camp proved the argument. If anything, atheists should be appalled at this group as Evangelicals should be appalled by the Dobsons and the Falwells, as Muslims should be appalled by the actions and words of the Osamas and his ilk, as Jews should be disgusted by Sharon's actions, as Democratcs should be disgusted by Lieberman, as Republicans should be disgusted by the party now masquerading as them, and so forth. The real injury is to the group that is being misrepresented by a small number of people claiming to speak for and be offended on the behalf of the larger group. Really, real athiests should be outraged and real DUers should be as well.

[Goblinmonger]

203. BIG misinterpretation

1. She DIDN'T say some of. She said agnostics were fine, but anyone that thinks there REALLY is no god (atheists) is an extremist. Then she calls for the removal of extremists from the Democratic party, i.e. ALL atheists.

2. Nice job with saying that because some atheists had problems with our interpretation of #1 above and were vocal about it that we proved there were atheist whackjobs in the world. So if I said that blacks were just a bunch of uppity niggers that bitched about everything, and they vocally told me I was racist, then they would have proved me right by being uppity niggers that bitched? Whatever.

[Jack Rabbit]

223. Lala

Good to see you here.

A few disclaimers: First, I haven't read the Raw Story piece that caused so much controversy; Second, I regard myself as a freethinker who will formally join the Unitarian Universalist Church in my community next month; Third, my late sister was an atheist.

That last point is worth mentioning because it makes me very much aware there are atheists and there are atheists. Wanda didn't believe in God, but it was perfectly all right with her if the next person did. Wanda wasn't out to save any one's immortal soul by convincing him that he didn't have one. She married the son of a Buddhist minister and her memorial service, of which I think she would have approved, was presided over by another Buddhist minister. Wanda regarded Madalyn Murray O'Hair with disdain.

As a freethinker, I won't profess to disbelieve in God (although some do). I will say I have no definite idea about God. God can mean many different things: It could mean a powerful spirit force who control some aspect of nature; an omnipotent, omniscient Being who Created nature, but is separate from the creation (the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God); something identified with all nature and the universe, a spirit or principle of cosmic unity or interconnectedness. I will also say, as a freethinker and a Unitarian, that all religious dogma is a human creation, that any religious tradition, in its broadest sense, has something positive to offer and that most religious traditions can be and have been used to justify bloodshed or oppression.

Consequently, I am not offended at the words "under God" in the flag salute or "In God We Trust" on the quarter in my pocket. I really wouldn't object to a moment of silence to start the school day. I can tell you what I was thinking about during the flag salute every morning was not how wonderful it is to be an American but "How about that Willie Mays", and, if we had a minute of silence right after that, I would have continued thinking on those lines.

The truth is that some (not all) atheists are as obnoxious as some (not all) Christians. They think that atheism is rationalism and rationalism is atheism. I don't agree on either point. They are offended at any display of religion and go to court to stamp it out, just as some Christians feel it is a infringement on their religious freedom to be civil to a gay person in the work place. I recall once walking to lunch between two co-workers, one a Christian fundamentalist and the other a -- should we say? -- atheist fundamentalist. They were discussing how old the earth was based on scientific evidence and the reliability of that evidence. They were getting a little heated and I told them both to cool it. Frankly, I had no use for either point of view each was expressing.

I will agree that one cannot believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection and at the same time a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Both of my colleagues held that view. However, one may believe in some less literal interpretation of Genesis, be a devout Christian and still accept a scientific theory as the basis to explain material facts. Neither of my colleagues seemed to be able to handle that. Both of my colleagues believed that a scientific and religious outlook excluded each other. I think that's utter nonsense.

It doesn't surprise me the extremists on our side of the isle act just like the ones on the other. Even when discussing politics, I bristle when I read something like Freepers should be lined up at shot after the revolution. There's something similar to that and All liberals and leftists should be put behind barbed wire at Gitmo. That is not what democracy is about. It is a fascist state of mind that embraces orthodoxy and attempts to burn heretics. The only difference is what one side defines as orthodoxy and the other as heresy.

[SidDithers]

226. The age of the Earth is a theologic discussion?...

"I recall once walking to lunch between two co-workers, one a Christian fundamentalist and the other a -- should we say? -- atheist fundamentalist. They were discussing how old the earth was based on scientific evidence and the reliability of that evidence. They were getting a little heated and I told them both to cool it. Frankly, I had no use for either point of view each was expressing."

I thought the age of the Earth was pretty well established by science. :shrug:

Sid

[Jack Rabbit]

228. Not as far as this other fellow was concerned

As far as this other fellow was concerned, radio carbon dating was unreliable and the age of the earth no more than 15 thousand years.

Personally, I do not subscribe to that theory.

[Goblinmonger]

232. So the guy arguing it was no more than 15,000 years old

is an asshat who is ignorant due to what his religion has told him. Why would you equate that person with the atheist that was saying what science has proven to be the truth?

[Jack Rabbit]

237. I don't

The atheist was arguing that any religious outlook was incongruous with science. With that I do not agree. The Christian fundamentalist was arguing that science was consistent with a literal interpretation of the Genesis, but only after throwing out most accepted science theory. That is obviously a fallacious argument with which no reasonable person could agree.

Again, my view is simply that the acceptance of scientific theory is not inconsistent with a religious outlook. It is, however, inconsistent with some narrowly defined religious dogma, such as Biblical literalism.

A religious outlook may simply be thought of looking at the stars in wonder. Was Einstein not a scientist with a religious outlook?

ON EDIT

If there is anything in the two I equate, it is that both were being, each in his own way, provincial and narrow-minded.

[Goblinmonger]

239. Well

I don't think science gives a rat's ass about religion. That being said, I do think that at the level that science is about trying to prove something through replication and religion is about faith, that religion and science cannot go hand in hand on the basic tenets of the two. Can there be good religious people that are also good scientists? Sure.

[Jack Rabbit]

249. Response

(R)eligion and science cannot go hand in hand on the basic tenets of the two.

I disagree only because I am defining religion in the broadest way possible. No, science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about that which can neither be proved nor disproved, like the existence of ether or of God.

As Kierkegaard pointed out, religious faith is irrational. To believe in God (or to deny that God exists) is a leap into the absurd.

Kierkegaard believed in God. He was a Lutheran minister.

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

272. This isn't the first time I've been embarrassed by a DU thread

I doubt it will be the last.

However, since that thread links back to original article, I will make a few comments.

First, it's poorly written. Ms. Barton opens herself to being misconstrued. Judging by the reaction to her piece by Strong Atheist and others, I'd say she was pretty badly misconstrued. It was an easy mistake to make.

Second, let's take a look at this paragraph:

(W)hat is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

So, right there we find reason to refute the claims made on this thread and elsewhere that Ms. Barton means all atheists. I would suggest to her that instead of creating her own nomenclature, she use something more commonly understood. She goes on to call these people whackjobs pretty consistently. Obviously, that is a fighting word. If she were talking about an obnoxious type of left wing ideologue and used the word whackjob to describe that type, I think I would lose interest in her piece pretty quickly. Her use of harsh language is no way to make friends and influence people, as the reaction of much of DU's atheist community attests.

She proceeds to a critique of atheism's "outrageous claims".

Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false . . . .

Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists . . . .

Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive . . . .

Outrageous claim number 4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia . . . .

Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

Ms, Barton goes on to refute these claims, which are, indeed, all refutable. Indeed, it cannot be proved that there is no God any more than it can be proved that there is one. As I suggested in an earlier post on this thread, to state categorically that there is no God is as much a leap of faith as stating categorically that there is only one God and Mohammad is His prophet or that Jesus Christ is Son and God or whatever. In science, one simply stops making reference to theories about things that can be neither proved nor disproved. Einstein never proved ether does not exist; he simply said its existence could be neither proved nor disproved and went on to explain the movement of the planets and stars in a theory of relativity that made no reference to ether. Ether hasn't been part of any scientific discussion for a hundred years. Over a hundred years before Einstein, Kant, in The Critique of Pure Reason. showed that proofs of God's existence and non-existence were both reasonable, yet God either exists or does not. No major philosophical system has attempted to prove or disprove the existence of God since. Atheistic philosophers like Marx, Nietzsche and Sartre did not try to prove there is no God; they just asserted it. Bertrand Russell, who was for all intents and purposes an atheist, was nevertheless mired in the idea that if it couldn't be proved logically or mathematically it couldn't be said; therefore, he called himself an agnostic throughout his life.

Outrageous claim number 2 is refuted by saying that just because we don't observe it doesn't mean it isn't there.Nevertheless, a well known formal logical fallacy takes the form if P then Q; not P; therefore not Q. Example: if it's raining, then the street is wet; it's not raining; therefore the street is not wet. That does not necessarily hold. The sewer could be busted or some naughty children might have taken a wrench to a fire hydrant. It does not have to be raining for the street to be wet. However, if the street is not wet, then one may safely infer that it is not raining (if P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P). Since the natural is all that can be observed and measured, it means that it is the only proper subject for science. That is why, as GoblinMonger said above, "science doesn't give a rat's ass for religion." It's also why intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Outrageous claim number 3 is refuted by instances of religion as a vehicle for liberation. Ms. Barton does this very nicely and without even mentioning religious figures like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

I would refute outrageous claim number 4 a little differently than does Ms. Barton. If we accept a materialist view of the world, then we may want to argue that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line. An idealist would, of course, hold that it is; however, a materialist would say that there is no such thing as a straight line. No line is perfectly straight. A straight line is an ideal form that exists only in the mind; it is a generalized abstraction of the material world. By the same token, however, an ideal society could never exist. That, too, would simply be generalized abstraction from the material world in which we find ourselves. How could a materialist like Lenin argue that the state would wither away leaving an ideal society? Beats me. As long as we speak of the material world, we are speaking of a world of rough edges and imperfections. Utopia is impossible. Slaying one dragon will cause another to rise and take its place.

Finally, outrageous claim number 5 is refuted with countless examples of devout people who don't try to proselytize the entire world.

After spending so much time knocking down straw men, Ms. Barton goes on:

In modern America, atheist extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do. While most who believe in the separation of church and state hold that only government support of religion in the public sphere should be forbidden, the atheist extremist may take it one step further to forbid the private display of religious symbols in public places.

Since atheist extremists (or is it secular extremists or just whackjobs) don't have the "wealth, influence, number or power" to affect public policy, what is Ms. Barton's problem? Is she trying to make a Bush-style pre-emptive strike? Apparently that is what she is doing.

(T)hat's far in the future for America if it ever comes to our shores at all; the greatest danger the atheist extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the atheist extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

OK, I admit I don't have a lot of use for fundamentalists, even when they're atheists. My sister, Wanda, wasn't that kind of atheist and from what Lala says, I doubt her husband is, either. However, Madelyn Murray O'Hair was and she still has a following. I'm not so much outraged by them as Ms. Barton is; I'm just annoyed. The display of somebody else's religion does not offend me. If a judge wants to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, that's fine with me, as long as he makes his decisions by the laws legislated in his jurisdiction. If that judge starts setting his idea of Biblical law over that legislated, then we'll have a problem with him, not necessary with every one who shares any of could be broadly called his religious beliefs.

Likewise, when someone who is an atheist has a hissy because there's a Nativity display in a public place in December, then he's the one looking foolish, not every one who just happens not to believe in God.

[lala_rawraw]

278. I think you are right and your argument is well reasoned.

Although you did not include mice hating cats as I had suggested;) But no, I understand I agree. Opinion pieces can be strong in provocation to be sure, but as you see, she did not say ALL with regard to anything or anyone, which seems to have slipped from the minds of those cutting and pasting without regard for what the writer said. It was strong, yes, but also badly argued, as I have said. That is her opinion and this is my opinion. How does what she wrote justify what you have seen, if it does at all, in the threads that have since been posted, emails sent, etc.? What do you make of the folks reacting the way they are to this as opposed to reacting in more measured, reason based debate over it? Just curious about what goes on in that head of yours;)

[Jack Rabbit]

281. What Ms. Barton wrote

What Ms. Barton wrote should have provoked a reasoned critique. Unfortunately, that would require getting beyond the name calling. I can understand why some people were hurt by it.

Nevertheless, it does not justify what I've seen. It does not justify any personal attacks on you. You didn't write the article. Would any one demand that Paul Krugman defend something David Brooks says just because both have their columns run in The New York Times? Nor, for that matter, does it justify blanket attacks on Raw Story. VolcanoJen's short remarks at least have something behind them, but it's something more than just one poorly written piece. Moreover, Raw Story gives us your work. Lala, you are very good at what you do. Raw Story is very fortunate to have you, and so is DU. We look forward to reading more of what you have to write about the crisis in Iran that the regime is manufacturing.

As for the mice, any one who has read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy knows that your cats are right.

[lala_rawraw]

283. I think it is also important to repeat

the point that I had stated over and over that I did not agree with the piece, but that too has become lost in the noise. anyway, check the Kucinich thing, it is worth the time... I am impressed beyond words... I say Feingold and Kucinich as my ideal ticket.

Ha, I love Hitch..Guide, the original, not the new one. My cats are now flagging me down and reminding me that I am on deadline... off I go before cats go wild:) i must remember to upload pictures of the kids, that is cats, kids:)

thank you for your kind words. john is a fantastic reporter as is Miriam Raftery as is Ron, contributors, etc.

[Jack Rabbit]

335. It is very important to point out what Ms. Barton did and did NOT say

It is very important to point out that Ms Barton did not say all atheists are whackjobs. She explicitly said something else. Unfortunately, her otherwise inflammatory prose made that point easy to lose.

Her writing is atrocious, but her thesis is defensible. It was not hate speech. If she had said all atheists are whackjobs, that would have been different.

She has a problem with militant atheists and their doctrinaire brand of atheism. She cited examples of what that is and what she found wrong with it. It is an atheism that doesn't respect religious belief, expresses false and misleading ideas about what religious belief is and seeks to discourage any public expression of religious belief. I have no more patience for that than I have for the Christian fundamentalist who denies that separation of church and state is a constitutional principle (such a person needs a course in reading comprehension) and wants to force his beliefs down the throat of everyone else. Nevertheless, she should have called these people militant atheists, not whackjobs, and invested more verbiage in distinguishing the militant atheist from the atheist at large.

I also wish Ms. Barton had not assumed that all militant atheists try to speak for the left. The former co-worker I cited above, for example, was a former member of the John Birch Society whose politics were just a shade this side of Attila the Hun. In fact, as I recall the late Ms. O'Hair's few pronouncements on political issues that had nothing to do with church/state matters, she impressed me as being a moderate conservative. I don't know if she would have described herself that way.

What everybody is looking for is some mutual respect for individual beliefs. Religious belief -- including atheism -- belongs in the private domain. Church and state should be separate and it is not the government's business to promote religious belief or to discourage it. We can talk all day about whether a vague reference to an indefinite God in the flag salute or on our coins and currency breeches that wall. However, to say that a person is irrational because he believes in God or that a person is wicked because he does not is simply out of line.

[lala_rawraw]

350. I agree, again...

Are you just posting to have me keep saying "I agree?":)

[Goblinmonger]

279. At least you are finally honest

about your feeling toward atheists. Do you really want us to leave the Democratic party. Because the attitudes that have come out in the past couple weeks about atheists have really put me off to this site and the party as a whole.

Why didn't you respond to my quotations from the founding fathers on this thread that were all clearly within the definition of that article as far as being whackjobs?

[Pastiche423]

300. Larisa -

Thank you for calling me part of a "psychotic ganging up". It truly restored my belief that you are a fair reporter. NOT!

You've lost quite a number of readers, me being among them, for your defense of that pathetic "editorial" and blaming atheists/agnostics for not understanding her rubbish.

I, as well as others, have grown tired of your many BIG STORY teasers. Your reaction to the editorial was the final nail in my assessment of you and RS.

You can pat yourselves on the back for adding more division to our already divided party.

[lala_rawraw]

302. I don't recall calling YOU anything...

But then again, if you are part of the gang that "fixed" the columnists words and then presented them as though she had written them that way, if you are part of the gang that sent her "die bitch" emails, if you are part of the gang smearing and attacking anyone and everyone who has an opinion different from yours, if you are part of the gang that thinks it okay to use atheism as a tool for violent and ugly behavior, thereby embarrassing atheists who want nothing to do with these Segretti tactics, then yes, I am speaking about you. If I lose a number of violent readers who have shown no respect to anyone and who have done nothing but attack, smear, like, and distort, then by all means, don't let the door hit you on the way out. So I never said you, I said the people who did those things, if that is you, then you can take credit for the divisiveness, the hate email, the rewriting of someone's column, the smears on everyone in a 50 mile radius. Not me. I have always promoted DU as much as possible and all over the web, radio, and in print. My goal is to support all of us.

If you are part of the group acting in this manner, than you are an embarrassment to atheists, to du, to liberals, and to any decent person who knows the difference between bile and reason. And enough with the big story teasers, really. The fact is, I have done reports that have made a difference, you have done damage to a woman who intended to say something, sad it badly (we all agree) and then attempted to explain herself and for that, you (assuming you are part of this group, and you claim to be) and your gang attacked, defamed, harassed, and lied about her. So please, don't read Raw Story because you are too full of bile to see anything of substance. Oh, and I am a fair reporter in my articles, as a person, I tend toward fairness the best I can. I have attempted fairness with that gang by repeating over and over the same points and it still made no difference. So my reaction now is not about fairness, it is about anger that you and your bunch think it appropriate to attack a woman who intended well but made a mistake in presenting something and even apologized. You want to be part of this hate gang, go for it and thanks for not reading Raw Story.

[Pastiche423]

312. Making friends all over the place, eh Larisa?

My only crime was to read the original editorial which was highly offensive to atheists and agnostics. I "fixed" nothing. I wrote no emails. I smeared no one.

I did, though, become royally pissed when you defended her vitriolic vomit. You state that she wrote poorly, or some such, but still believe it should have been posted? That speaks volumes to me about your lack of credibility.

Attack any and everyone that found the editorial sickening, but it won't change how you will be viewed. Your credibility is now shot, IMHO.

[Catrina]

369. Raw Story's credibility is not shot with me, nor is Larisa's who I regard

as one of the few real journalists in this country today ~ so, to say definitively that someone's credibility is shot is simply your opinion. Maybe you meant to say 'with me'.

I read the article, (only after seeing all the threads about it here) I thought it was confusing, in that it was not written very clearly. However I definitely understood her to say that:

there are extremists who are atheists and atheists who are NOT extremists.

Pretty simple really. So, I was pretty astounded to see all the misinterpretations of what she said and the vitriolic attacks on Raw Story and all the writers there.

I personally have encountered the kind of people she refers to. Maybe she hung out on some of the Internet boards where it is pretty common to see hateful, vile attacks on anyone who believes in god. They exist, everywhere.

I doubt that's a religious or an atheist 'thing'. Imo, it's a personality thing. Certain personalities who take positions on issues often become militant about them. Such people are obsessive and their obsessions turn too often to attacks on the objects of their obsessions. The fact that they choose different targets, doesn't mean, imo, that they are all different because some are religious fanatics and some are anti-religious fanatics. All of them may fit into a category of their own, whether they are right or left, imo. Mostly I leave them alone. Feeding their obsessions only strengthens them.

It's too bad that she was not able to write an article that discussed this type of individual, since we tend to think they exist only on the right. They don't, she is right about that, imo. They latch on to whatever 'side' most fits their particular hatred.

I can see where people often see themselves depicted when attention is drawn to these extremists. The same thing happens with religious groups if the language isn't clear.

Meantime I look forward to Larisa's next article and will always use Rawstory as a resource among several other progressive sites I go to.

[Left Coast Lynn]

147. Two questions for Will

Do you know how Raw got the Truthout story so quickly?

Do you stand by the story that there was a target letter issued to Rove?

[WilliamPitt]

167. I don't know, and yes.

[Left Coast Lynn]

220. Thanks Will n/t

-

[havocmom]

174. Possibly on of the best statements you have posted:

'If you only read the stuff you agree with 100%, you're an empty wad of meat that serves no intellectual purpose. Allow yourself to be challenged, even offended. You sharpen your claws on the stuff you disagree with. That's a good thing.'

Most here are willing to point out the hazards of the neocon/PNAC echo chamber in the White House. Same hazards apply when we insist on our own echo chambers.

[KAT119]

190. BRAVO Will-I agree totally-deeply appreciate Larisa & Raw Story...

[KyndCulture]

192. They have a right to make a living like everybody else.

Nobody said the alt news business was non profit. That argument holds no water.

I love Raw Story and read everyday.

[K-W]

198. The beauty of the internet is diversity of sites and sources.

Rawstory is can be useful, Rawstory has some gaping flaws.

So what?

Its the internet, if you can use it use it, if you cant, don't. It isnt taking up real estate that could be used by someone else.

There is no need for ideological policing, and the last thing we should be doing is discouraging activism.

A group of people are trying to run a useful interesting progressive site, if they havent done so to your liking fine, find someone who does or start your own site, dont sit around sniping at the people who are trying to create something useful.

[Jigarotta]

201. ya know, I don't understand how so many here

tolerate your insults for so long.

""If you only read the stuff you agree with 100%, you're an empty wad of meat that serves no intellectual purpose.""

I would say that the writer of that article is the empty wad of meat that serves no intellectual purpose if SHE CAN'T BLOODY WELL COMMUNICATE CLEARLY (ooooo, I didn't 'really' mean 'that' - I meant 'this', /good cripes/) IF WRITING IS HER SUPPOSED CALLING.

She has thoroughly insulted a lot of people and deserves a thrashing and RS should have been a lil more gracious towards their audience in this fiasco rather than being protective of that poor writer and snarky toward their readers.


sheesh.

[DanCa]

209. For now on I am going to argue religion and politics infront of a mirror

That's probably the only way I can find someone who thinks exactly like me. Gee I wonder what people will think when I start arguing with myself :D

[Anarcho-Socialist]

254. Being left-wing does not excuse bad journalism

Being left-wing does not excuse labelling a sizeable section of the progressive movement as "whackjobs", and then calling for an old fashioned purge of the Left.

[Maddy McCall]

266. Their bad journalism goes far past that. See...

VolcanoJen's post above.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

267. Thanks for pointing that post out, Maddy

I'm glad I've never bothered with Raw Story before. I'm glad you, VolcanoJen and others are calling Raw Story on the crap they're producing as "journalism". :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

259. Raw Story Is 100% On Our Side And I'm Grateful To Them, Truthout And All

the others working tirelessly to get the facts out and our message across. When the petty bickering, whining and need to just brow-beat anything has gotten to such a degree that even Rawstory has to deal with the abuse now, it shows how truly bad the 'let me find something to crusade against' disease has really gotten now.

I don't have a bad thing to say about RS, T.O., or any other truly progressive and liberal outlet. They're on the same damn team I'm on. People really need to quit the petty yacking already.

[althecat]

260. Hear hear...

K & R

Raw Story team....

:yourock:

[lala_rawraw]

263. thank you very much!!!!

i sent to the folks over at our mother ship... very nice of you!!!

[lala_rawraw]

264. thank you very much!!!!

i sent to the folks over at our mother ship... very nice of you!!!

[lies and propaganda]

268. I love RS Teasers!

i come back mnay times a day for more.

[Vidar]

269. Thank you, Will.

[One_of_8]

273. Well said

No matter what site or publication or other media outlet you receive your news from, you should always utilize critical thinking. So take Raw Story for what they are, part of a larger group of progressive news sources.

[robertpaulsen]

277. What's sad is that Raw Story should need a defense.

That a great reporter like Larisa Alexandrovna gets raked over the coals for her original reporting on Iran, then when it's found out that her research is substantiated by no less than Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh, no apologies are offered. Frankly, I've had enough of the BS allegations that Raw Story just gets their stories elsewhere and has no honest original reporting. Kudos to you for defending them Will, but I'm not going to anymore. I've had enough of running my head into the "empty wad" brick wall.

[leveymg]

280. So far, RS has shown uncanny news judgment.

If they're just guessing, Lala and friends are awfully damn good at it.

That accuracy makes them a valuable resource, no matter how they get their stories.

[fearnobush]

284. I read Raw Story every day and will continue to. Why?

Because idiot America can identify with it, its format, and its simple to use tabloid layout. People at my job read Raw Story over Drudge. Drudge has captivated the work place online news market over the last decade or so. So far, the only easy to surf online liberal tabloid countering drudge is Raw Story. People like it. Stop shooting your liberal selves by bashing it over one anti atheist article, hell, half the atheists I know are Bush lovin' freeper types because the love the bombs and carnage, but most of all, they love the greed. I support Raw Story.

[beam me up scottie]

293. Thank you for illustrating the stellar intellect it takes to appreciate RS

:applause:

[lala_rawraw]

301. Since you are going to use that signature, I think

You should tell us your real name and what you do. After all, it takes no guts to smear and attack people from the comfort of your living room and it is easy to attack people who do put themselves out there. You are using a column as an example of yellow journalism and attempting to discredit the work of many. I have some additional questions for you:

1). Show me one article where I was inaccurate (and I don't mean minor errors that were later corrected or typos) and proved to be wrong? Now remember, this time around you are not allowed to change the writers words so you can pretend that it was written that way. Also remember, that a columnist has much more freedom to express her/his views than a reporter does. Since you are accusing me of yellow journalism, I suggest you provide three examples where I was wrong.

2). Show me an article written by Miriam Raftery that was found to be wrong, same instructions as above. You are calling her a yellow journalist as well, correct? Prove it.

3). Show me one article that was written by John Byrne that was proved wrong. You are accusing him of yellow journalism, right? Prove it.

4). Show me one article that Ron Bryant (ePlurbis media member) wrote that was proved wrong. You are accusing him of yellow journalism, are you not? Prove it.

5). Show me something of value you have done that has in any way helped get the truth out to the public or anything you have done that required you to put yourself on the line. Show us.

6). Tell us your name and what you do and stand behind your very serious accusations of fraud (yellow journalism), because hiding behind a clapping smiley is easy for a coward.

7). If you find Raw Story to be not credible, then why are you waisting this much time and energy simply in attack mode. I mean is there nothing else you have to do?

8). Look up Segretti, then imagine him with Internet access, does that describe you and your gang?

9). Take Andy's name out of your signature. I was very close to Andy and Andy was attacked by people like you (in fact by some people you are siding with right now) in the same smear and bullshit way as you are attacking me, Jason, Will, everyone at Truthout and Raw Story. Andy was my friend. Andy was Will's friend. If Andy was here, he would not be supporting your hate antics and you offend everyone by exploiting him in your signature next to a publication that he supported completely.

Your comments are childish and ugly, but for you this is fun and games, for me, I put everything on the line to get what I can out and you think that you have a right to call me a yellow journalist, that is acceptable? I don't think so. If you want to declare war on the free press, you will be standing with your 14 mates all alone in the end, because like us or not, we are all you have and you can take that to the bank. I assure you, that while we may have lost 14 readers because of your antics and maybe a few more because you change the columnists words and others did not realize it, but you have lost far more in fighting the only thing you have to keep you connected to reality. Take Raw Story, Truth Out, Buzz flash, etc. out of the picture and you would have to rely on what? So, I say this again, you need not read me, you need not like me, you need not like all free press. But if you are going to accuse me of yellow journalism, you better have the balls to back it up.

So we, all of DU is waiting for the answers to these questions... you want truth, put yourself on the line then.

[Name removed]

303. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cry baby]

305. stellar intellect, indeed.

no answers to the questions, just violins. hmmmm

[beam me up scottie]

306. Well, I thought this was the pity party.

Dammit, did they decide to have it in the lounge this time?

[lala_rawraw]

308. Waiting...

tick tick tick... come on now, we are all waiting for your balls to grow in... BTW: thanks for the serenade. i love violins:) If you are simply gonna play lovely music for me, can you get a guitar at least hon? muah

[beam me up scottie]

309. Waiting for what, credibility?

Humility?

Justification for turning on your friend when you should have supported him?

A conscience, maybe, for invoking a dead friend's name just to make your snit extra special?



I think you'll be here a while.


Pity's all I've got for people like you.


Oh, don't forget your audience, which is what this was all about to begin with.



Cue the drama.



Enjoy the limelight.

[cry baby]

286. I like RS just fine. It's one of my sources, as is Truthout.

Can't believe there is so much disagreement about a pretty reliable source of info that leans left. I guess discussion on lots of subjects is the purpose of a discussion board, but I'm sad that some have such hard feelings against RS... and each other.

[oxbow]

297. This election cycle is gonna be as hard as they come

They are indeed "on our side," and we need all the help we can get this time around. If Democrats insist on eating their own over every editorial indiscretions and minor sensationalization that, in the long run, makes little difference to the big picture, then we will never win the Congress back. We need to band together as never before in order to snatch a victory here, as the GOP has stacked ALL THE BOOKS against us. Raw Story serves a valuable function as part of our communication machine.

Do they have an obligation to vet their stories and avoid bias? Heck yes, they do! But boycotting them and pouting isn't going to help us in any way. Progressives need to reach out and put their differences to rest now, or stay in the politcal wilderness indefinitely. Both sides of this debate need to get together and act like adults. THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH FOR PETTINESS NOW.

[WillyT]

299. Ah Will... Don'tcha Know??? - We Will Tighten Our Lug-nuts, And...

polish our Carnuba pasted cars, without much of a care for whether or not the FUCKING CAR RUNS!!!

Apparently, some have more of an issue over accreditation, than over fascism. Yet others, have gone from the MSM not doing THEIR jobs, to the progressive Web not following the sane tenets as the same asshole MSM fuckfaces that never followed their tenets or did there jobs in the first god-damned place!

Exhibit #1: IRAQ!!!

I cannot call out the names of the folks here that slay me so, but...

I remember when some were in dire straights due to catastrophic circumstances, nobody I my line of vision doubted their story, nor their need.

AND ALL THIS SHIT DOES, IS DIVIDE A GOOD COMMUNITY!

But maybe THAT's their point?

:puke::puke::puke:

:wtf:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

304. You can defend them until the female bovines take residence...

... I formed my own opinion about Raw Story more than a year ago. I don't like their work. This latest brouhaha merely reinforces my opinion. I think that they deserve to "die quick and hard" for their technique, regardless of whose "side" they are on.

Scratch that: because of whose "side" they claim to be on. With friends like these...

Maybe if you keep using straw-men like "those who say" and projections like "'But Buzzflash has original content', you say?" you can write editorials for them too.

I hope that you allow yourself to be challenged, even offended, and don't only read the stuff that you agree with 100%. The world has enough empty, ineffectual wads of meat. Are my claws sharp enough? It's a good thing. Wear a helmet.

[Raster]

307. I agree with Pitt. Raw runs the gamut from chumming the waters to random

acts of journalistic bravery. I thank what-the-fuckever deity for the Internet. Without the Net, the evil empire would have crushed us long ago. The founders of this Great Experiment did not foresee the Fourth Estate in its present form. Our weapon, our defense is knowledge. The entire planet knows what evil incompetent douche bags ANYONE associated with the bush* administration must be because of the freedom of the Net. If it were left to American mainstream media we'd still be fed chimpy in a flight suit.

[Evoman]

317. Rawstory is shit

Liberals will never fucking win if they keep selling the people who do support them down the river, in exchange for the support of the right wing, or even moderates, who will never join the cause.

Basically, what this "writer" was saying is that atheist=purge, agnostic=okay. She SAID IT. She says that people who are CERTAIN there is no god are whackjobs.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! There was a POLL in the R/T forum that asked, "How certain are you of your belief" MOST OF THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE CERTAIN there is a god. Why isn't rawstory calling them whackjobs and asking dems to purge them from the party?

Asking for the purge of "certain-of-their-belief" ATHEIST WHACKJOBS WHO SUPPORT DEMS is like asking for the purge of "certain-of-their-belief" RELIGIOUS WHACKJOBS WHO SUPPORT DEMS. They are still liberals that you want to leave behind!

An atheist on this site...the atheists who are angry at rawstory, would NEVER ask any religious person to shut up. We can argue, we can debate...but by god, we won't leave you behind and we would never ask you to shut up.

Many people are equating ATHEIST EXTREMISTS to RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS. That is fallacious...and not only because religious people are the majority, atheists pose no threat (whens the last time an atheist bombed anyone), and basically, there are no such things as atheists extremists. No, it is fallacious because these so called "ATHEIST EXTREMISTS" are still FUCKING LIBERALS who don't want to change legislation to support their "beliefs". Religious extremists are neither liberal, nor are they interested in sharing power.

Rawstory was shit before this happened, and rawstory is still shit after. You get a story wrong, you apologize and offer a retraction. You can't do that, then your not the "news source" for me.

[Strong Atheist]

323. It seems that a lot of people only understand

HATE SPEECH if it is directed against THEM. Pretty pathetic...

[Strong Atheist]

321. Since when is PROMOTING HATE SPEECH a liberal/progressive value?

Oh, right, it isn't, except at rawstory, where it is not only printed, but then defended with more HATE SPEECH:

**************************************************************************************************
To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

**********************************************************************************************

I am sure they will be PROMOTING HATE against african americans, GLBT, and Jewish people SOON (Ms. Barton, beware! :rofl: )

I am OVERJOYED to be participating in the BOYCOTT against this HATE SITE

[Roland99]

327. Get over yourselves. This feigned indignation is ridiculous

No wonder some people are called the "loony left"

[Strong Atheist]

329. Wow, how tolerant, understanding, and empathetic of you! A shining

example of liberal/progressive words and thoughts!

Cheers!

:toast:

[Roland99]

330. Projecting again, are you?

Amazing how poor reading comprehension pulls out the hatemonger in some people who call themselves progressive.


Sad.

[Strong Atheist]

347. rawstory is a hate mongering bigoted piece of shit site!

Boycott rawstory!

Cheers!

:toast:

[muriel_volestrangler]

331. It's not 'feigned'. She called people like me a threat

to the ideals of freedom and liberty, and claimed that since the majority of the USA believe in a supreme being, we should be silenced for the good of votes for left wing parties. "Get to the back of the bus" hardly covers it - it's more like "get off the bus, or we won't be able to lure the bigots on - there are more of them than you".

[Roland99]

332. Um, as I asked others. Where did she say that?

Might I remind you to read the entire article and not go off some bloggerhead's feigned indignation.

She very obviously referring to a minority: extremist atheists/secular extremists/whatever.



This is just such a ridiculous matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

333. See post #116 and following posts

And you can look in the other GD threads on this for my reaction, and I commented at the column on Raw Story itself. Yes, of course I've read the whole thing; are minorities fair game for discrimination, then? Shouldn't it depend on whether their views are actually abhorent? It's possible to hold views that religion has no reasonable basis while still being a liberal. I just think that religious people have got some theological questions wrong; and that religion doesn't serve a useful purpose any more. I wouldn't ban it, however, and Barton doesn't restrict her criticism to only people who would ban religion (which I would agree would be incompatiable with liberalism). As a comparison, I also think astrology has no reasonable basis, and serves no useful purpose, but I wouldn't ban that either.

[Roland99]

334. See post #69 and following posts

Extremism in any form is not a good thing.

A "secular extremist" trying to force his/her viewpoint on others is just as wrong as a pseudo-Christian fundie doing the same from their end.

[muriel_volestrangler]

338. What force? (n/t)

[Roland99]

340. Whether you want to admit it or not,there are atheists who take things too

far re: their lack of belief.

There are atheists that browbeat the religious simply because of their belief in a God or belief that Jesus died and was resurrected. They get in the face of the religious as vehemently as fundamentalist Christians try to force anti-abortion or anti-gay rules and laws into the gov't.

Then there are people like Michael Newdow that create incredible tales of woe out of inconsequential details, when the grand scheme of things is taken into account. That merely marginalizes atheists and makes them seem even more like the "loony left" in the M$M.

As I said, extremism from any vantage point is not a good thing. Moderation is key. I'm an atheist but I will not "preach" to anyone else out of the blue. Heck, I'm a patient at a chiropractic office that is filled with evangelists. They play Christian music on the PA system (actually, some of the songs are pretty good, musically, can't hear the lyrics usually so that makes it even easier to listen to ;) ). But, they don't preach to me directly so I can respect their viewpoints. I know to expect a Christian-themed experience when I'm in there but they're helping my neck and lower back so I keep going. Now, were a "secular extremist" to go in there, they'd be likely to complain about the music or the posters or who knows what. And what benefit does that gain that person?

[muriel_volestrangler]

345. Preaching isn't force

But you seem to thinking that complaining about preaching is somehow wrong, when atheists are doing the complaining. Preaching, and the resultant complaining, are part of free speech. Maybe an atheist woldn't gain anything by complaining, but he wouldn't be forcing them to do anything.

The nearest to force that has come up is Newdow trying to get the separation of church and state enforced. Is wanting a principle of a country to actually get followed 'force'?

[Roland99]

348. You completely misconstrued my point.

I can see I am getting nowhere quickly with you (like the others feigning indignation and trying to find ways to be offended)

[muriel_volestrangler]

352. Once again, I am not 'feigning'. I really am indignant.

Why can't you accept that? Someone wrote a column on a 'liberal' website calling for vocal atheists to be shunned, and calling them enemies of freedom, and their editor defended it, and pissed on the complaints he got. That's got me indignant - and several people here on DU seem to take the side of th editor, so I'm arguing against them.

OK, tell me your point again. I asked you in what way 'extreme atheists' were using force, and you went on about preaching. So I replied that preaching isn't force, but speech. This still seems correct to me, but if you feel differently, it would help if you gave an argument why preaching is force. I don't think that going to court about the pledge and so on is force either, but since you've just said I've misconstrued your point, it doesn't seem to be what Newdow is doing either that was what you were talking about. So please tell me, what were you trying to say about force?

[Roland99]

353. Ok, I'll play along one more time

Complete removal of the ten commandments from all public buildings even when the ten commandments display is a part of various other displays of laws and not in a manner making the display of the commandments any more prominent.

Browbeating someone who is religious over their religious beliefs. I've seen it done, even up here. That's not just speech no matter how you try to spin it.

As for Newdow, you misconstrued the point. Go back and read my statement on him again. Note the use of the word "marginalizes". This is where that concept of reading comprehension comes into play.


Why can't people keep their beliefs or lack thereof to themselves?

[muriel_volestrangler]

372. Are those other laws religious, or real laws?

I don't know which case you're talking about - are there laws from other religions there, or is it a public building where the ten commandments are the only religious ones displayed? Half of the 10 Commandments have nothing to do with actual laws - they are theological demands. If they're the only ones there, there's a bias to a particular religion.

What you are calling 'browbeating' may be just speech. We'll have to see the actual words used to know. If an atheist is threatening someone because of their belief, or wanting to prevent them holding the belief, then yes, that's wrong. But Barton wasn't talking about threats. She was talking about atheistic opinions.

So your problem with Newdow is just that he whines too much ("create incredible tales of woe out of inconsequential details, when the grand scheme of things is taken into account. That merely marginalizes atheists"). Whining now threatens the ideals of freedom and democracy?

Why can't people keep their beliefs or lack thereof to themselves?

What, you mean like putting displays in public buildings starting "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? ;)

[Strong Atheist]

356. I notice you are unable to answer the question.

Too tough for you?:evilgrin:

That's ok, I understand...:evilgrin:

Cheers!

:toast:

[Roland99]

362. What question? Your baseless spewing above?

I responded already to it. Wanna cookie?

[Strong Atheist]

363. Ah, I see it flew over...

Don't feel TOO bad...


Cheers!

:toast:

[Roland99]

364. Anything with *that* much hot air would sail over Everest.

[Coexist]

324. thanks - some people really get a bee in their bonnet about Rawstory

but I love them.

[bloom]

325. I think it's funny

that the "whackjobs" know who they are and are proud of it. Saying "Proud member of the Whackjob Atheist Corps"

I suppose those who are proud of calling other people "bigots" even while they paint ALL religious people as evil idiots don't see how bigoted they are.

People who use that signature might want to think about who are they grouped with. Like the vigilantes of DU who like to tell people whether they are really an atheist or not (through PMs of course).

[Zynx]

339. Indeed. They insult Christians as a group non-stop and then when there

is the slightest criticism of atheists for being extreme they scream "OPRESSION! BIGOTRY!". Minorities can be just as guilty of bigotry as majorities. South Africa was a perfect example of that for most of the last 100 years.

[Goblinmonger]

341. Who is "they"

and could you please give me an example where Christians have been insulted as a group by progressive atheists.

[Roland99]

342. Feigning indignation again?

[Goblinmonger]

343. Yeah, thats right

just keep telling yourself that. I am not really mad about being told to get off the bus so that ignorant fuck moderates can feel comfortable to come back on. I don't mind being called a whackjob. None of that bothers me. I'm just "feigning." So are all the other atheists that had the exact same reaction. As a matter of fact we have hourly meetings in the A/A forum to discuss how to best act like we are mad when we actually are quite happy when presented with bigotry against us.

Your canard grows old. Just keep defending the bigots. I'm sure your avatar would be proud.

[Roland99]

344. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

I love it.

Keep it up. Your hatred is rather amusing to view.

[Goblinmonger]

346. I'm glad to see

that you find people's reaction to bigotry so funny. I bet you get a big laugh thinking about the civil rights movement. You must pee your pants when gays are beaten by red necks. Mysogony must make you laugh so hard you pass out from lack of oxygen.

[Roland99]

349. Oh, keep it up! Comedy gold here, folks!

[JVS]

357. Mysogony, is that hatred of polygons?

[Roland99]

358. Yeah, what's wrong with polygany?

All they want to do is have multiple vertices. As along as all sides are consenting......

[Goblinmonger]

359. Give me a break.

I'm just trying not to type what I REALLY want to type in reponse.

Why polygons btw? Am I missing some reference.

[JVS]

360. Polygons are triangles,squares, pentagons, hexagons, and so on

[Goblinmonger]

361. OK

I might be an English teacher, but I'm not THAT stupid.

Why would MYsogony be hatred of polygons when MIsogYny is hatred of women? Is it the GONy?

[Name removed]

354. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

366. Anytime any thread comes up about Christianity you will see it.

Christians are accused of being idiots, stupid, having imaginary friends, many have urged the destruction of or have rooted for the fall of all religion. There was a thread four days ago that I posted in where all the author said was, paraphrasing, "What a great world this would be without religion!". You don't see me saying, "What a great world this would be without those damn atheists.".

[Coexist]

326. Aristotle agrees with you on this:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

[SidDithers]

365. Would truthout have published the Barton article?...nt

Sid

[Beelzebud]

367. I'm an atheist, and the more I think about this, the stronger my urge to

yawn is.

Much ado about nothing. I had never heard of that author before she wrote the piece, and I now know not to read her writing again.

Personally I don't give a shit what she, or anyone else for that matter, think of atheists. I'm not the one that needs a Santa Claus father figure to guide me.