a brief primer on atheism and racism.

[kalmn]

as an atheist, and a new convert with all the requisite new convert zeal and all, i think your religion, yours, that one right there that you are so fond of, is full (if i am familiar with it) or is probably full (if i am not familiar with it) of sexist, racist, disablist, probably homophobic and transphobic crap and how did i almost forget classism, either in its core beliefs or in its general practice.


(you may or may not believe in those particular core beliefs, you may or may not follow the general practice. that's a whole different discussion, and as for what i think about *you*, i'm not willing to have that discussion over the internet.)

does this mean it's okay to point out the parts where religion leads to social injustices by focusing on the religions mostly followed by brown people?

NO. no it fucking well does not. in fact, it is racist to do so.

Comments

[laceblade]

<3

[marydell]

Jeez you sure know how to take the fun out of atheism dont'cha?

[commodorified]

You mean atheism may ALSO be full of sexist, racist, disablist, probably homophobic and transphobic crap and how did I almost forget classism?

A person might almost get the impression that religion qua religion wasn't the basic problem, here...

[kalmn]

mmmm. we could have a nice discussion about the core principles of atheism etc, but I do agree that there are a good whack of atheists with problematic practices.

next after this, however, is the discussion about the powerbases behind any given religion vs that of atheism.

atheists! jerks in many various ways but we don't run very many countries!

[snippy]

??? I'd be willing to bet that many athiests have run countries, just not out athiests. Coming out day for athiests!

[commodorified]

There's a definite discussion there, yes, which I'd have to spend a certain amount of time thinking about, but, frex, France comes to mind as a country with an explicitly non-theist legal basis - and they're not doing so well on the old Liberte/Egalite/Sororite.

I'm neither particularly for nor especially against secular/atheist forms of government or for that matter theocratic/theist ones.

I just don't think either is, in and of themselves, a problem *or* a solution.

[redbird]

Some atheists seem to have gotten as far as "there is no god" without realizing that, given that there is no god, anything they were taught on the basis "God says this" or "God wants you to do that" has to be questioned: if there is no God, then God doesn't care whether you eat pork, or what gender of people you have sex with. And some people get that far, but not to "if there is no God, then God didn't give men dominion over women, and didn't make people of your race/ethnicity/class superior, and isn't punishing people for their sins by making them sick or disabled."

[the_future_modernes]

yes.

[spiderplanet]

Atheists don't run any countries.

There are left handed people with jerkyness issues. There are vegetarians with jerkyness issues. There are stripey-shirt wearing people with jerkyness issues.

There has never been any government founded upon the principles of left-handedness, vegetarianism or stripey-shirtedness, but it would be more cohesive than an "atheist" government because the lack of a belief is not doctrine or dogma.

[the_siobhan]

My understanding of the definition of atheism is that it is a belief - specifically the belief that there is no intelligence directing the Universe. And that "lack of belief" (ie, "I have no clue if there is anybody driving this thing or not") is more properly termed agnosticism.

[spiderplanet]

Atheism is just like the word says, lack of theism. It is similar to A-leprechaunism (an absence of belief in leprechauns that stems from a lack of leprechaun evidence) or A-unicornism (an absence of belief in unicorns that stems from a lack of unicorn evidence).

I would content that nearly all or all political leaders are aleprechaunists and aunicornists. The lack of belief in leprechauns and unicorns does not a political platform make.

Richard Dawkins spoke about this too. He said that most atheists can also be rightly called "atheistic agnostics," when lack of any evidence is the justification for lack of belief.

Using spell check properly!

[spiderplanet]

*contend

[the_siobhan]

Ok gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. By that definition your statement above make a lot more sense to me.

All of my experience with people who do have the explicit belief that there is no God/Gods/Sacred Chao/what have you, is that they also call themselves atheists. I did an (albeit brief) google search and there doesn't seem to be a separate term.

[daedala]

Weak atheism vs. strong atheism might be what you are looking for. The way I learned it:

Strong atheism -- there are no gods
Weak atheism -- can't prove it either way
Agnosticism -- god is unknowable

[trinker]

Dunno about anymore, but all Soviet bloc countries were officially atheist...

[emceeaich]

I think the critical difference may include:

* "the arc of the universe bends towards justice" where justice is revealed and defined by an agency external to it, vs.
* the universe does not have a concept of justice, except where it is defined by human (sapient) agency, and there's no certainty about what justice is.

Shorter form:

* Some people believe in a benevolent god, ruling over a universe trending towards that god's definition of justice and act accordingly.

* Other people don't believe in a benevolent god (the malevolent god is a degenerate case [see Tea Party, Elder Gods, or Ayn Rand]) and while they want justice, have to make it up as they go.

So while Religion may not, in your words, be the problem here, I hope you would see the conflicts that derive from the cases above.

[commodorified]

Oh I see the conflict; I admit I frequently regard it as largely theoretical, given that my religion "[does] not teach that His Pity allows them to drop their job when they dam'-well choose.".

Which is to say, I believe in a Benevolent God and also that I have given her license to use me until I break at the seams in order to get that arc bending as required.

I suspect the more obvious conflict here is that kalmn is arguing that religions are full of bigotry and horror because they have gods in them, wheras I'm afraid I tend to think that the problem is that they have people.

[kalmn]

i suspect both that you have not asked me what it is that i believe in this regard, as your statement above bears little resemblance to what i think, and that you are bound and determined to turn this into a discussion about your religion, despite my having said specifically, starting out, that that was not what i was interested in doing.

please stop doing both of those things, or at least stop doing them here.

[commodorified]

Well, no. It was not intended to be a hostile paraphrase, and I'm sorry it came out so. It did appear to me to be what you were saying. It's a sentiment I've heard expressed by a fair number of atheists.

I'm not overly interested in discussing - in the sens eof explaining or justifying - my religion at the best of times, though I don't undertake in any discussion of religiosity never to speak from my own experience; that was a sidebar to Whump, related to his comment.

I *am* interested in the issue of the degree to which religiosity and bigotry are or are not related. I don't, obviously, see them as intrinsically intertwined.

And I am interested, globally, in the question of what traditions, systems and institutions can be, from an anti-oppression standpoint, detoxified, and which cannot and have to be replaced.

I'm happy to talk about those things or not to talk about them.

(I am also, parenthetically, probably making more sense now. Turns out I should eat fairly regularly; who knew?)

[emceeaich]

Yes, failing at reading instructions today. Sorry about that. I moved things over to my journal.

[jesse_the_k]

Who converted you to atheism? In my experience, it's a truth one tends to find on a solo path. If there's an atheist army, I might want to enlist?

[heyfoureyes]

even though I'm not an atheist, I find your opinionatedness kind of hot.

WHOLE different kind of worship here though.

[heyfoureyes]

does this mean it's okay to point out the parts where religion leads to social injustices by focusing on the religions mostly followed by brown people?

NO. no it fucking well does not. in fact, it is racist to do so.

what if you point out ALL the parts? ie European-followed and Asian/African/Indian/Latino-followed religions and their fuckups. I think that's fair.

[commodorified]

Ok, can I just sort of globally apologise?

I'm in the midst of a slow rolling domestic crisis here, I haven't been keeping up online at *all*, and I completely spaced on all of the context. Like, utterly spaced. Brain not making connections. I looked at my flist this morning and went "ah, FUCK, Nightingale, you did it AGAIN."

I do feel like there *is* an important discussion there, under all the cruft, but my choice of time and place sucked retail and wholesale.

[kalmn]

*hug*

i'm sorry you're having a crisis. it is an important discussion, you're right, but what say we buy each other drinks and have it some time in person.

(right now, more drinking would significantly improve things, far as i can tell.)

[commodorified]

I'll look forward to it; thanks.