Not that there’s anything good about this, but hearing that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins “resigned” from whatever honorary positions they had with the FFRF rather made my heart sink.
I was a linguistics student for a time, and Pinker’s books always had a sociolinguistic aspect to them, but I never saw transphobia. It was admittedly a while back, so it really wasn’t yet settling into the national consciousness.
I also admired Dawkins’ writing style; again, I saw nothing transphobic.
So for both of these guys to be like “nope, you should have totally kept a piece up that says transwomen should have fewer rights and options” is, maybe, the final insult of 2024.
There is no transphobia in Atheism.
There are some individuals who ascribe to being Atheists, and who are also transphobic.
But “Not believing in a god” says nothing about transphobia.
This is not a part of atheism. These are old ass narcissistic bigots who needed a new grift as their old one wore thin.
That is a weird bit to me as well. I’m used to atheists being the group most likely to follow Jesus’ teachings.
I think the purpose of religious teachings is to cast off the shackles of religion
Witaf does atheism have to do with transphobia?
One is a rejection of God beliefs, the other is about identity and people’s bodies. It’s like comparing a parking structure to a grapefruit.
As an atheist, I don’t follow a single famous atheist because then it feels like preaching and that just reminds me of religion
I can never remember which one between atheism and agnosticism is the one where you just don’t give a fuck, that’s the one I am.
That would be apatheism. It’s not an alternative to the other claims but a disinterest in the problem space itself.
Atheism is a spectrum of opinion ranging from “I neither accept claims including gods nor put forward alternatives” to “I claim no gods can exist and here’s why” with some wiggle room on both sides as the arguments devolve or extremify.
Agnosticism is a strange participant as it lacks a cohesive definition. It’s more like a spectrum of reasons “adherents” think the claims made by others aren’t valid. It’s the last port of call for participants embroiled in philosophically rigorous metaphysical tedium and first stop for apatheists so disaffected they’ve never read a relevant text.
deleted by creator
Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually not so much about doubt, but whether it is possible to know.
An Agnostic says it’s not possible to know whether there is a god or not.
A Gnostic says it’s possible to know whether there is a god or not
An Atheist says they don’t believe a god exists
A Theist says they believe a god exists.
You can be an Agnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in god, but I don’t think it can be proven god doesn’t exist.”
Or a Gnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in a god, and I think we can prove God doesn’t exist.”
Or an Agnostic Theist. “I think God exists, but I don’t think we can prove it. You just have to believe”
Or a Gnostic Theist. “I think God exists, and I think we can find proof.”
Next time could you post some kind of warning that this is literally just 20 minutes of this guy reading out transphobic posts? Thanks.
deleted by creator
I just don’t trust anyone who actively identifies themself as an Atheist. It’s not some lifestyle, cult, or movement - just the absence of religion.
Feels more like Dawkins et al are trying to build a power base on a rather spurious commonality so they can tell other people what to do; who does that remind you of?
Perhaps you should understand that people over the age of 60 have a different fundamentals and different language than what you are trying to expect from everybody. You are losing potential friends by alienating them only because they cannot learn new things anymore. Not only is it ableist, it’s also bad strategy.
If you must have hate, focus it on people who actually hate you. Don’t try to imagine hatred in others, in the worst case you and they both might start believing your delusion.
Bullshit they can’t learn anything “new”, they just don’t want to, and they think because they’re older they are allowed to have power over the rest of us.
That’s the ableism.
Regarding athletes, aren’t there like different categories within the genders too? Where I live there’s some massive cisgender women, like they’re muscular, wide, and tall. I can’t see those competing against a smaller woman in certain sports.
Where I live there’s some massive cisgender women, like they’re muscular, wide, and tall.
Oh well um… Whereabouts is this, out of academic curiosity? 💦
Holland
Womens sports were never about protecting women from other women. They were sold as such, sure (racist and transphobic moralizing fear campaigns have always scored political offices)
Women’s sports exist to protect (a faceless majority of) men’s egos from women’s excellence. The fact that FIDE still enforces women’s chess is a glaring example.
To “cover all bases” though: When it comes to physiology, it would make so much more sense to have weight classes irregardless of sex or gender identity.
Fact is we have entrenched, wealthy institutions with lots of bastards who refuse to see the humanity of another gender or skin tone other than their own, and until they croak they’ll drag out every backwards tradition they can force down our throats.
The fact that FIDE still enforces women’s chess is a glaring example.
There is no man’s chess, you know? Women can and do participate in open tournaments against men.
Woman’s chess is a DEI program to incentivize woman’s participation in chess in a more inclusive environment, because, surprise surprise, chess has a misogyny problem. You can argue that this doesn’t work or something, but it definitely isn’t there to protect men’s egos (especially considering titles acquired in women’s chess tournaments are worth less than regular titles).
Lol ok
Wait, so, you’re telling me men feel pain? 🤔
All joking aside I feel so naive sometimes. Women’s chess? Like what the actual 🦆
Yuuup. It’d be funny if it weren’t so harmful 🙃
It depends on the sport, but yes, many competitive sports have weight classes
Well, I’m not familiar with the works of neither, but I’ll throw a limb here and say that fighting religion doesn’t really means fighting cult mentality. It’s better to uproot the tree than laughing at the color of some apples.
Why we can’t finally agree on the fact that humans deserve the same rights as others humans because, well, they are all humans, and you kinda can’t loose that trait no matter what. It’s simple, you are a human, you have the same rights (and obligations) as others humans do.
deleted by creator
Fuck dawkins. Embarrassing bigot.
You arent a “awakened thinker” or w/e if you are a fucking racist and woman hater
That’s pretty damn disheartening, considering Richard Dawkins being one of the writers responsible for my world view today. His books really made me understand the questions I had about my beliefs in religion after growing up in a fundamentalist family, and my understanding of the beauty of evolution when all that info was skipped in a private religious schools
Truly a sad day to read this
We can think for ourselves, we can look at Dawkins work and go: “That is reasonable, I agree with that.” and look at his Tweets and go: “That is unreasonable and morally wrong, I don’t agree with that.”
We can look at them as teachers who teach us in their field of expertise, not as heroes we can aspire to be like.
There’s a section of the atheist movement that went deep into Islamophobia after 9/11, and they came out of that aligned with the Christian Right in the end. Not sure if this is part of a grift or just an age thing.
deleted by creator
There’s been quite a lot of massacres and evil shit generally that’s been done in the name of any religion. No religion is inherently worse than another.
deleted by creator
If I understand your argument, it is as follows, “Certain religious entities are responsible for the worst terrorist attacks and crimes against humanity in the modern era. Therefore, the content of the religious teachings of those religions must be responsible for the motivation to commit said attacks.”
If this is the case, then if I were to provide one of two counter examples, the burden of proof now comes back to you.
- Counter-example 1 - Take a religion well known for its fundamentally peaceful texts, and see how it can still be twisted to commit terrorism(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
- Counter-example 2 - Take a region with principally members of Religion A, see how many terrorist incidents were committed in said region(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Indonesia), compare it with another region of similar population with principally members of Religion B(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)
In the end, the actual texts of religions does not matter, people will use the text to justify whatever nonsense they already believe. If people actually believed in even an ounce of their religious texts, capitalist Christians and violent Hindutva groups could not exist.
deleted by creator
This already makes the comparison unfair… But issue #02 why Indonesia? Like, why that country? Is it because I talked about Islam and Indonesia is a Muslim country so it qualifies for the comparison somehow… like if that’s the criteria I would say that Saudi Arabia is more worthy to choose for that comparison, especially since Saudis are fluent in Arabic, while Indonesians have their own language…
The region of the world does not change the text of the religion, which in turn should mean that the type of terrorist attacks committed by specific religions should be similar. This is the case when we look at the links between Indonesian Islamic terror orgs and other Islamic terror orgs. The reason I chose Indonesia was a population based comparison to show off an outlier in the United states. The united states despite being significantly less religious than Indonesia, a nation of comparable population has a comparable amount of terrorist attacks. In addition, why does the language of a religious text matter in the modern era? The Bible wasn’t written in English, but it certainly manages to be a part of lives of English speaking peoples.
#03 issue; the US is a Christian majority country, and if your intention was to prove that Islam doesn’t have that much influence over these attacks by picking an arbitrary Muslim country, which makes the number arbitrary… well if we’re comparing religion VS religion and not a Country VS Country, you should compare every Christian country to every Muslim country ( combined ) and even then the results wouldn’t mean anything… Christian fundamentalists commit more crimes than Muslim fundamentalists, how would that help solve religious extremism again? … Stats you’re asking for wouldn’t address the problems (wars, violence, hate speech… etc.) that are associated with religion… Because you’re looking in the wrong place, you want to understand a religion, look no further than it’s official books, look into the history of its founders, you’ll find your answers and more.
The claim to compare terrorist acts by religion does make sense, so I looked up some data - https://www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/global-terrorism-index/ which does seem to indicate the majority of violence in terms of number of people harmed does seem to stem from Islamist terror organizations. However, these actions seem to be heavily concentrated in specific regions with specific terror groups. For instance, half of all terrorist deaths happened in one region of sub Saharan Africa - Sahel. Additionally, in the West, politically motivated attacks overtook religious attacks, which declined by 82%. There were five times more political attacks than religious attacks. This is my point fundamentally - We cannot draw a direct line between terrorist attacks and religious people, leave alone between terrorist attacks and the text of specific religions.
However, as I mentioned earlier, I will contend that groupthink caused the lack of a functional truth seeking algorithm, and the lack of a robust meta-ethical foundation does play an important factor in religious terrorism specifically. Religion by definition has a requirement of trusting claims without evidence, and is therefore strongly associated with groupthink, which also requires blind trust.
sorry for the wall of text… Happy new year
Beehaw is a leftist space, and leftists are known for their essays lol, as I have just demonstrated myself. Additionally, I think I’ve spoken my piece here, so I probably will not reply further, as it does take significant time to read and respond with evidence, to claims made without evidence.
“No gods, no masters” also applies to demagogues like Pinker or Dawkins. Disconnecting an idea from the people associated with bringing it into your life can be difficult.
deleted by creator
I have never heard this version. Still addresses elimination of heirarchy. Happy New Year and thank you.
I think they meant ”No gods, no heroes, no idols“ though.
Never heard either of those. I’ve heard “no gods, no masters”, but mainly in the context of anarchy.
And I have never heard that phrase before. Maybe it’s a regional with these?
And then as an anarchist heathen I’ve embraced “Many gods, no masters” because pagans in general are a more open minded and far less dogmatic group than atheists are as a group.
May I submit, also: “No Demagogues, No Managers” as a more modern, relevant and actionable version – Combatting Populism and refusing to be “Just Following Orders”, especially those of Fascists.
I just don’t trust anyone who actively identifies themself as an Atheist. It’s not some lifestyle, cult, or movement - just the absence of religion.
Feels more like Dawkins et al are trying to build a power base on a rather spurious commonality so they can tell other people what to do; who does that remind you of?
While I like Steve Shives generally, I don’t like the title. Now, I haven’t watched this video yet so I don’t know if he differentiates, but from I read in the comments it’s (mostly) about Dawkins and Pinker (whom I don’t know). Most activists who support trans communities and the LGBTQIA±movement are atheists though.
Quite the same topic (Dawkins’ transphobia) is this video by Genetically Modified Skeptic: Why I Turned Down Working With Richard Dawkins
(I don’t want to take anything away from Steve Shives though. I’m not saying ”Watch this video instead“, I just want to add.)
I wouldn’t assume that most queer-supporting activists are atheists. They’re probably not latching onto bigoted religious organizations, but there’s a massive range of worldviews between adherence to any particular religion and a firm belief in a lack of deities or of other things we’d typically qualify as religious, spiritual, or supernatural. They’re probably unlikely to be your typical churchgoing conservative Christian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re fully landing on atheism specifically.
