Christians don’t want their money going to contraception yet they wont fight to remove “In God We Trust” from the money that atheists must use. They wont ensure that atheists don’t have to give their tax dollars to faith based spending groups. It doesn’t even dawn on them that atheists might be offended at the notion that our tax dollars go to a faith based group.
They are out for self. They don’t truly embrace their fellow man. They tend to be pro war, and pro death penalty. They are against YOU having an abortion even if you know you will not be able to provide a good life for your baby. They want you to have that baby even if it is the product of a rape. The money that you put into the pool to save their life is willingly accepted by them, the money that you might need to save your life is fought tooth and nail by them. About 20% of people are on contraception for health reasons not related to purposes of avoiding a pregnancy. They don’t care.
Engaging in the Rush Limbaugh debate over the last few days shows me that many people support what he said. In fact they’re more mad that he apologized than they are that he made dishonest arguments in a vile fashion. How many of the Rush Limbaugh supporters are disgusted at Rush and his perverted idea that he should be allowed to watch video of women having sex because they need contraception?
We as a society would be better and stronger without their views yet you don’t hear about the army of atheists who want to refuse them the right to the funding that might save their life. That despicable quality is reserved for the religious person, and in this country predominantly the Christian.
Their ignorance and hypocrisy are disgusting. Even though they are a waste of air, I’d rather fight to educate them than to take away the funds that could save their life. Even though I know that educating someone that is as brainwashed as many of them are is nearly an impossible battle, I choose education over denial of funds, denial of life, denial of pursuit of liberty and happiness. They would deny you of all of those if they could, and they do try! They choose denial of funds. They choose the selfish route. They are out for self, they are a disgrace to the human race. Religion is a vile and evil concept that has corrupted the mind of man for far too long.
Poor critical thinking is the root of all evil. Religion is a byproduct of poor critical thinking, deceit, and a wee bit of evil. Today religious people have been hoodwinked by an archaic concept that contributes to many of the worlds problems. They don’t apply critical thought to their politics and their religion. They allow Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other scumbags to represent them and worse… convince them of nonsense without cross referencing any of it. They are sheep. They are dangerous to humanity, and I STILL WOULD SAVE THEIR LIFE! But they wont save yours.
Worst of all, they harm society in this way, all while claiming oppression.
And yes, I know these are generalizations. I know not everyone falls into this box, but many do. And the ones that do are the target of these statements.
This hypocrisy and lack of critical thought must stop. You must stand up and educate. Many of you do, you are my heroes, and my partners.
2 comments - What do you think? Posted by
Sapient -
March 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm
I have written a little post up about the theory of inherent dishonesty in theism for purposes of clarity. Should you choose to use it, please link to the page at Rational Responders.
The theory of inherent dishonesty in theism can be seen whenever a theist defends belief in god. The theory explains that while defending belief in god a theist must act ignorant dishonest or both.
There has never been an honest and intelligent defense of theism. This theory has been observed in every atheist/theist debate since the theory was originally coined around the year 2000. This page will be updated if an argument arises on behalf of theism that is both honest and based on factual data.
Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by
Sapient -
February 27, 2012 at 11:39 am
SOPA has been shelved (probably so they can try to pass something like SOPA in some other bill when nobody is looking). Wikipedia has decided to participate in the blackout. We will also take part in the blackout. Now we must speak up against PIPA. Spread the word, post about it everywhere, talk about it, get informed.
A blog was written today on the implosion of CFI Canada. As long as we keep having these accomodationist vs confrontationalist arguments we will continue to have implosions. Frankly, it disgusts me that we have done this. I felt the wrath of the accomodationists when I was known for being a confrontationalist. I probably will still have the perception of being one. Even though I am creating a feel good project that supports all atheists. I think I am a blend of both. I hope you are too.
Being able to adjust your method depending on who you interact with is a strong suit. And if someone sees you are confrontational, why must they label you as always confrontational? It is also highly hypocritical to be an accomodationalist but be confrontational on the issue of confrontationalists. It’s time for us to elevate our game. This division has gone on long enough. We must think critically and with reason.
I have always supported the efforts of those who are excessively passive, and think they should support mine. We must embrace each other even when we don’t completely agree. Part of the reason I started Atheism United was to show people how there can be a united front. I look forward to universally supporting both camps. It’s sad how I know the only way to make it work is to not rely on these groups to actually unite. I will support them whether they support me or not. And would you believe that there will actually be people who will kick this gift horse in the mouth? For what? Because I told someone Jesus was fake on twitter?
Please people, ponder it… we must work together, share a planet together. We can’t make such a big deal over tact and approach. Vocalize your disagreement so that your position is known, but you can’t let it get to the point where you are shooting yourself in the foot.
And if we’re really going to make these labels “accomodationist” and “confrontationalist” can we at least admit there are more groups than that? If we do, we must include a class of people who are still so downtrodden by religion and brainwashed by it’s followers that they refuse to speak up and would argue vehemently against someone who does.
Accomodationists aren’t a problem… people who are scared to speak up are. Those people need to sit back and allow everyone else to help humanity move forward, they need to go work on something else. Maybe environmental clean up, helping the homeless, or relaxing at the pool would be a better activity for people who are so beat by religion that they argue everyone should be quiet. I used to call that group “Chicken Shit Atheists” but you can come up with a politically correct 15 letter name if you’d like.
Wow Darrel Ray is brilliant. He nails it on “First generation leadership.” Because of my type-a personality and my inability to trust easily I was unable to spot future dedicated activists when they aligned with me early in their activist “careers.” Ashley Paramore and Shelley Mountjoy were by my side at the beginning. If I could have known to expand their leadership role early enough, they might have never needed to go become superstars elsewhere.
Check this article out if you would like to learn more about how atheist groups function, and how we can improve them.
Two Types of Leadership in the Secular Movement
Leadership among secular groups tends to come in two general flavors, those that are led by one or a few charismatic leaders (often the founders) and those that are led by a less centralized executive group. There is plenty of room for both types of groups in the movement, but it is important to be conscious and intentional in understanding and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both. For purposes of discussion, we will call these groups “first generation” and “second generation,” respectively, although they may not always fit that classification.
First-Generation Leadership
First-generation groups are often led by charismatic leaders. These are lean and activist groups. The founders have a sharp vision for what they want to accomplish and move fast to get the job done. They are often the leading edge of the movement and have influence out of proportion to their numbers both within the movement and in the larger society. Their strengths are invaluable because they are pacesetters, influencing the overall direction of the movement.
Despite their major strengths, it is also important to understand the weaknesses of first generation leaders. They are often an insular group and less democratic. Since first-generation leaders are generally autocratic, they tend to attract members who respond to strong, direct leadership. This limits membership, since only a fraction of the target population responds to this type of leadership.
Challenges to their leadership or vision are not welcome. It may be easy to join one of these groups but hard, if not impossible, to gain a position of influence. For this reason, the leaders have difficulty grooming the next generation. Upcoming, promising new leaders often see no opportunity to take part in the core functions of the organization and, therefore, don’t stick around long. Further, the boards of first-generation groups are generally a reflection of the leader and, therefore, typically very insular as well. The age range within this type of board is often similar to the age of the founder. This makes for a leadership structure that has a limited view and tends to be resistant to change.
Further, he talks about how groups led by charismatic leaders suffer when the external environment changes. The decision to start atheismunited.com was born from that change in environment. The atheist world is much different today than 6 years ago. RRS is still needed, but atheism united will be more current and relevant. The project was born from the idea that we didn’t care what banner we impacted the world under, we just wanted to have the biggest impact possible. We decided it was necessary to create something different. How justified Darrel Ray makes us feel.
“As long as the external environment remains consistent with the conditions in which the organization was founded, it will continue to function. But when the external environment changes, it can present difficult challenges. To the degree that an organization influences the surrounding culture, the target of its efforts must change. Culture is a moving target, and organizations that don’t adjust their influence strategy run the risk of using yesterday’s successful methods on today’s culture.
A good example is the civil rights movement, where many of the first-generation leaders continued following a vision that was rendered obsolete with changes in legislation and social norms.”
Pacifist agnostic atheist non-cognitivist freethinking Darwin loving scientific treehugger who loves Philly sports. Proudly led thousands away from religion!
