Coming Out Atheist, pg 186

Dec 18, 2017

But if it’s someone else’s personal space, such as their Facebook page or twitter feed or blog, they have the right to not listen to you blather about atheism, just like you have the right to not listen to them blather about religion. In their own space, they have the right to tone-troll, to shut down discussions that are making them unhappy, to ban atheists or Star Trek fans or people whose names begin with W. You can make your own decisions about whether their guidelines are okay with you, and whether you want to participate in their space. And of course, you can try to persuade them that their guidelines are problematic. But do it with basic respect of their right to curate their space any damn way they please. Pulling the “You can’t handle the truth!” number just makes you look like an entitled douchebag who thinks they have the right to spew anywhere they want.”

–Greta Christina, Coming Out Atheist, pg 186


Discuss!

5 comments on “Coming Out Atheist, pg 186

  • I’ve always believed in a person’s right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how stupid, irrational or ridiculous it might be. Similarly, I believe in the right of others not to have beliefs forced upon them eg, freedom FROM religion.

    If people are on a different planet, I’m not going to try to influence them to come to mine unless they ask.

  • emujoe #1
    Dec 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I’ve always believed in a person’s right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how stupid, irrational or ridiculous it might be.

    The problem with that view, is that people do not exist in splendid isolation with no effect on their environment or the surrounding population.
    Stupid views have damaging effects on neighbours and on collective or political decisions. There are such things as scientifically correct views based on evidence and ridiculous damaging views based on wish-thinking and propaganda!
    All opinions are NOT equal! Evidence based expert opinions, trump assumed and indoctrinated preconceptions, and made-up conspiracy theories.

    Similarly, I believe in the right of others not to have beliefs forced upon them eg, freedom FROM religion.

    “Freedom FROM religion” is about restraining the enthusiastic religious from inflicting their irrational religious beliefs on others, NOT about imposing some ideological belief on everyone!
    It is about PREVENTING the forcing of ideologies on other members of the community, rather than the double negative of PREVENTING the PREVENTING of forcing religious views on others, which you suggest in this quote!

    How about views on rejecting charlatan cons, giving pseudo medicines to children, and preventing irrational damaging prejudices being directed at other people? (Such as shop assistants refusing to serve blacks or transgender people)
    People and their views cannot be completely divorced from the reality of social interactions, and material consequences of actions which affect other people!

    There is a social responsibility to see that the population is properly educated by teachers and others, who have valuable and useful knowledge to communicate. – Especially in democracies where voters are passing judgements on policies and attitudes which affect everyone.

    If people are on a different planet, I’m not going to try to influence them to come to mine unless they ask.

    The problem is that they are not on a different planet!
    They are in the communities and in positions of commercial management and government, where their deluded or self-centred views affect other people and the whole planet!

  • emujoe #1
    Dec 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I’ve always believed in a person’s right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how stupid, irrational or ridiculous it might be.

    But as we see all too often these days, the ability to believe in things that are not real leads to a mindset that also enables one to NOT believe in things that ARE real like evolution and global warming. They are just two sides of the same coin where facts and evidence are not what people base their views on and that is dangerous. There is a fundamental difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. One is irrational and one is not. They are not equal. I personally think that religion is the most dangerous force that has ever existed in this world and that as a species we can never call ourselves rational or enlightened until it is gone.

  • I don’t target religion per se.

    I target moral dogma, the poison it most often contains, and the most deadly.

    I don’t blame a schizophrenic for making peace with her voices. I don’t blame the anxious for needing a feeling of a universe-meant-to-be, much as I find that suffocating.

    I target those that teach their children and others’, ideas for which they cannot supply corroborated evidence, those that have no humility for their own possible ignorance of the world, those that have no respect for the need to maximise a child’s future choices and right to individuality.

    Formally, a religion to be such, must contain at least one superempirical hypothesis about the nature of existence, where a choice of such hypotheses (some empirical) are known, the which becomes reflected in personal and cultural values and behaviours.

    However, I also suggest a religion as lived is what its adherents declare it to be. We must never set such standards that people can’t improve (and be accepted and rewarded as improving) in their moral performance and non-indoctrination of kids whilst keeping their personal comfort blanket.

    There is no innate need for religion itself to be banned, We are not the Thought Police and ideas aren’t killed by suppression, but mostly made stronger. Besides, the UK Quakers show the way to decency. There is, though, every reason to point out religion’s historical predisposition to poison and impoverish whenever its moral dogma is unleashed.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.