What the hell ('scuse the pun) did rawstory do to the atheists?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

I've seen all the uproar over Rawstory and some alleged anti-atheist article....Anyone have a link?

Hope ya'll don't mind I posted this here....It bears some relation to R/T, though. ;)

[LaurenG]

1. it wasn't nice and I think I'll just watch

:popcorn:

[lvx35]

2. here:

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

I don't think its too bad, it just says some atheists are whackjobs, just like some people of faith. IT also argues the logical validity of agnosticism over atheism, which I strongly agree with.

[Evoman]

20. Is it the same logical validity of agnosticism over theism?

Why don't we call all the people on DU who believe, with certainty, that god exists whackjobs? And if we did...would the DU christians just "let it go"?

Let me answer that....NO!!!!!

[NMMNG]

22. Yes, of course

There's strong agreement with the logical validity of agnosticism over atheism, but not with the logical validity of agnosticism over theism.

"And why are you atheists miffed again?" :shrug:

[bananas]

3. "The left's own religious whackjobs"

The left's own religious whackjobs
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

Raw Story Columnist Attacks Atheists and Secularists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1007330&mesg_id=1007330

The left's own rawstory whackjobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1027369&mesg_id=1027369

In defense of Raw Story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1035510&mesg_id=1035510

[katinmn]

4. An editorial opinion written by one has made several

people angry at all of RawStory including writers who had nothing to do with the editorial.

I did not agree with the editorial, but I think incidents like these make editors think more carefully about their audience and their editorial guidelines.

RawStory isn't alone. The Nation was criticized recently for running an anti-Palestinian ad. That, too, showed poor judgement. They lost some subscribers over it.

I think you have to look at the entire body of work and the contributions.

[Ladyhawk]

5. Um, er...uh...well. :)

As usual there was every opinion all over the map. A lot of the atheists were pissed. (This atheist didn't read the article.) Pitt said some people were being immature by dumping Raw Story over one article. (This atheist doesn't read Raw Story, anyway, because I suspect their journalism is shoddy...dunno for sure.) There was even an opinion that Raw Story was playing us all for suckers by writing the damn thing in the first place. All publicity is good publicity and the whole uproar probably increased traffic to their site.

I'd suggest going into the Atheists and Agnostics forum...probably you can find links to the threads from there. I mostly gave up on reading them after about ten posts. What some idiot over at Raw Story thinks about atheists shouldn't affect my life very much. :shrug: I'm more upset over so-called mainstream sources (Newsweek, for example) dissing us. It reaches more people and a lot of people don't trust atheists anyway.

I may not be the best person in the world. I know I have a lot of flaws, but a few years back I decided it was important to "come out" as an atheist. It's harder for people to hate us if there are real people to go with the label. I am starting to get a little impatient with atheists and agnostics who try to "pass." It really is counterproductive.

My 2 cents...it's worth what you paid for it. :D

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. BRAVISSIMA!

I'm always amused at the people who try to get into my face when I tell them I don't believe in any god or supreme being and that I think life is nothing but a quick adventure with no second acts after we croak.

Boy, they take it personally, don't they?

They ask if I believe in prayer - no.

Don't you worry about your soul? No, I don't have a soul. I have a brain. You have a soul? Good. I'm glad for you.

What about your children? Oh, they're all right. They don't have souls, either. Just grand minds and good hearts. We taught them that, as best we could.

How can you live in this world without believing in god? How can you, I ask them, when you look around? Is that what your god does? Hey, time for a replacement, I'd say.

And, sorry, but, no, I do not automatically give "respect" to people because they are members of some cult - which is how I view every "organized" religion. Respect is earned, and I am happy - yay, overjoyed - when I meet someone whose faith doesn't render them my automatic enemy in their thinking. We respect each other, and we do fine.

As for "agnostic," well, the only thing I've ever seen in the middle of the road is a long yellow line and lots of flattened dead animals.

Good post, Ladyhawk. Thanks.

[Finder]

9. Great post...n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

6. Oh, for all's sake.

We're getting worked up about THAT?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's hardly anything awful. To be absolutely blunt, it even bears truth. A whackjob is a whackjob is a whackjob, no matter what faith (or lack thereof) one follows.

Now, I'm not saying atheists are whackjobs--I despise organized religion as much as the rest of you. But you must remember that I'm not an atheist. Agnostic, perhaps, but not entirely atheist. I sympathize heavily with atheists, but those who act like whackjobs in the name of atheism are as twisted as those who act like whackjobs in the name of religion.

Do I think that atheists are bringing the "liberal agenda" down? Absolutely not. Do I think we need to tell them to shut up? Absolutely not.

Do I think that all whackjobs, of any persuasion, ought to be pointed out? Absolutely yes. And there ABSOLUTELY ARE atheist whackjobs in the world, who shoot themselves in the foot.

Our left is not infallible. So why, instead of pissing all over Raw Story, don't we use the article constructively?

[RoyGBiv]

10. I agree ...

I do not understand the outcry. People I would never view as "extremists" are livid.

And, I have to say, it's just sad that one has to attach so many disclaimers to such a comment.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Huh? Despise organized religion...

as much of the rest of WHO? Ain't all atheists here, in case you have forgotten. That's the room down the hall on the left.

Other than that, though, right on. She points out that some atheists are nuts, and a bunch nutty atheists come out in force to denounce the whole site and tear down the temple of evil.

Just another circular firing squad-- full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

19. I realize now that was a generalized statement....

I was addressing it to the atheist crowd, and should have specified so. Sorry 'bout that. ;)

[TreasonousBastard]

23. No problem-- happens...

to all of us some time or other.

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. How do we use it constructively, when it calls for shutting up and

disowning some atheists who apparently threaten freedom and liberty, by holding views on whether gods exist? The column was profoundly divisive. I feel I agree with some of the 'outrageous claims'. I think it's me she wants silenced, and shunned by the left. It's not that her examples are about someone who is trying to ban religion - it's their philosophical views that qualify them for the McCarthy treatment - that, and that they're a minority in a God-believing country. Am I really shooting myself in the foot when I argue that religion tries to control its followers? Or that it's out-of-date, now that we have democracy? I believe blasphemy is an out-dated concept - that religion shouldn't get special treatment as a philosophy. Do I have to keep quiet about that? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? It's not the 'whackjob' label that angers me - it's her attempt to put herself in charge of progressive thought, and to decide who gets expelled, because they hold minority views.

I really can't see any way of making lemonade out of the column. It's just divisive crud. If it were just the column, I'd ignore it and the author, but Avery Walker, the managing editor of Raw Story, is defending it to the hilt, and rather than answering any of the critics' points, telling them all to piss off. So I want to make it clear that Raw Story supports silencing minorities that hold harmless philosophical views.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Not only was it divisive, Muriel

I think it was suspicious, coming as it did right before the Newsweek article. Who got to whom? Coincidence? Very odd.

[Evoman]

21. What makes a whackjob a whackjob?

"Do I think that all whackjobs, of any persuasion, ought to be pointed out? Absolutely yes. And there ABSOLUTELY ARE atheist whackjobs in the world, who shoot themselves in the foot."

Yeah, but what makes an atheist a whackjob? THATS THE PROBLEM. By her definition, every atheist is a whackjob!!!! Many people on DU have expressed that fact they believe WITH CERTAINTY that god exists? Are they whackjobs by definition? Of course not...its the same with atheism.

What makes a christian whackjob a whackjob? Let me put a couple of examples..

1)Violence or suggesting violence against people with different beliefs. Have any of us done that? Do you see Atheist television calling for a fatwa? Or suggesting assasination? Have you ever heard an atheist here or anywhere suggest violence?

2)Strong Efforts at Conversion. How many of you have been approached on the street or in your house by atheists? How many of you have been ridiculed by atheists or scorned by atheists for being believers? (and I mean this in society as a whole...have a group of atheist ever stopped you on the street and told you your going to be worm food and you really don't have a soul)

3)Limiting exposue of children to new ideas. Do atheists stop their kids from attending school or hanging out with people who have religious beliefs to prevent them from meeting different people? Do atheists open special atheist schools and forbid religious people from coming to those schools?

These are three examples of behaviour of religious whackjobs. Do you think we have religious whackjobs on DU? No, I don't think so. Do we have atheist whackjobs on DU....

By the conditions of the Rawstory Pseudojournalist....Oh yeah...we are all whackjobs.

Fuck Rawstory and their shitty tabloid rag.

[Strong Atheist]

24. Firstly, the article said ALL ATHEISTS were whackjobs:

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

Edited to add: This is akin to saying that not all feminists are whackjobs, just the ones who are women. Replace "atheist" with "feminist" in this "article", and see how much you like it.

When HUNDREDS of atheists wrote in complaining about this HATE SPEECH, the OFFICIAL rawstory reply was MORE HATE SPEECH, defending the first HATE SPEECH as legitimate and calling all those (EVERY SINGLE ONE) asking for apologies stupid:

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.


vicious, and dishonest:

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.

Here is the FULL, OFFICIAL RESPONSE. Judge for yourself:


*********************************************************************

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 | #

**********************************************************************

Looks like a big "Fuck you!" to me...

You should also look for a far better disection of this HATE ARTICLE than I could do here:

Read the excellent analysis by Austin Cline:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

[longship]

7. Just like any belief, there are reasonable people and there are loonies

I'm an atheist, but I'm no loony. I don't give a damn what other people believe and do not have any interest in foisting my beliefs on anybody else. I am comfortable with the fact that others believe in a deity. As long as they respect my right to not believe in one I have no issues with them.

On the other hand, I have a big bone to pick with fundementalists who either push their religion on everybody or want to deprive people of their rights *because* they believe differently. As an atheist, I will fervently defend my right to remain an atheist.

[Snow]

11. It's an oddly culturally limited debate,

as western society seems unable to conceive of someone being religious and yet not needing to have that central authority, the creator of the universe. I am a Quaker, but do not hold with a central authority or creator. Not to compare myself with him, but the Dalai Lama likewise would be considered by many to be an atheist since he also does not find the central authority figure necessary. So is he not religious? I've seen it claimed that buddhism is a "philosophy" rather than a religion for that very reason, and likewise confucianism, although that "philosophy" influences the lives and thought of millions, probably billions of people.

[tocqueville]

13. the article is full of inaccuracies

one of them is the definition secularism = atheism

Secularism is only the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society.

another one is the complete misunderstanding of the French "veil law". The law is just an expression of PROTECTION of freedom of religion, by making proselytism and religious influence foreign to a particular "volatile" environment such as highschools. It just states that religion is a private matter and should not lead to exceptions perceived as an attack on other pupils beliefs or behaviour.

"Laïcité (secularism) is currently accepted by all of France's mainstream religions. Exceptions include the far-right monarchist reactionaries, who wish the return to a situation where Catholicism was a state religion with a political role, as well as with some Islamist leaders who do not recognize the superiority of civil law over religious law.

Laïcité does not necessarily imply, by itself, any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant to protect both the government from any possible interference from religious organizations, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

if this makes all mainstream French "extremist leftwing whackjobs", this is probably an "extreme rightwing nutjob" definition.

[Zhade]

15. Very true. The article is basically premised on a strawman.

The hack who wrote it may not realize that, by defining 'secular' as 'nonbeliever', she's basically stated that religious people CAN'T be secular.

Comes as a real shock to all the personally-religious-but-societally-secular believers I know.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. I am a Christian

but also a secularist. I want NO special dispensations for my faith, because if they are given to me, they can be given to someone else and might impede my rights.

T-Grannie

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. They pissed 'em off

REAL good by implying that THEY are the problem with the Democratic party.

It was a total swift boating and a load of what they call down here "dukey."

T-Grannie

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Oh those overarching arguments!

Atheists make 'em.

Theists make 'em.

But No True Scotsmen make 'em. Or do they?

It is real easy to put this into perspective -- assume that any group of like-minded people will include a few members with Cult-Prone Personality Disorders who develop tribal ideas and become whackjobs, attacking the "opposing" groups' members with wild abandon. Members of "opposing" groups will then assume that all members of the whackjob's group share the whackjob's behavioral tics.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy has been cited here frequently as a way to prevent people from dishonestly dissociating themselves from whackjobs. I think NTS is a minor fallacy at best, of limited application, but it does get to the heart of the matter -- how do we figure out who's doing what, and how does it relate to the beliefs of the group? NTS also calls on us to consider our responsibility to our "tribe" and its wackier members.

I don't think it's useful at all to link individual behavior with group mores, codes, or commandments (as the case may be). It really only has a use in situations with a hard enemy, like right wingers. I don't consider either DU Christians or DU Atheists to be "hard enemies", even the ones I've argued with. It's tougher to criticize the mores/codes/commandments of a group, because the members tend to immediately feel that they themselves are being attacked, but it's the same kind of a problem -- assuming the worst from anyone who disturbs the peace. All criticism then becomes hatecrime.

The Rawstory article accurately pointed out some of the vices of a few atheists -- and promptly made the leap-of-faith and assumed that there were a large number of atheists who act just like that. But it's an easy and trivial task to collect the faults of individuals. Applying these faults en masse is a very real, and very socially dangerous, intellectual vice. Still, reading the article while carefully mentally disconnecting from the personal attacks is a good idea for anyone. Whackjobbery is poisonous to the health of the group and its goals, and it would be good idea if more of the members of various issue groups kept a "siblingly" eye on their kooks.

Most of us need to occasionally take a step back and figure out just who the enemy is and what we're fighting for. Sustained combat takes its toll in battle fatigue. I turned 18 in 1976 and the New Right came to power in 1978, so I've been dealing with these issues most of my adult life and a big-assed chunk of American History. The same wackiness that propels the Right poisons the Left. Atheists, Progressive Christians, Freethinkers, American Mahayana Buddhists, McKenna/Crowley/Learyites, Free-Zone Scientologists, and members of the hoasca-drinking O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal need to keep this in mind.

Heaven -- it's a fuckin' jungle!

--p!