I am constantly amused by others that say that being an atheist is more than what it actually is: a non-belief in god(s).
If you happen to agree with that statement, I think you’ll be rightly indignant by this post. I’m really not sure what this blogger is trying to say here other than what we’ve seen before from The Social Justice League that any atheist that does not hold to their specific ideals of atheism is simply non-human.
First of all, the blogger uses the verb imply quite a bit. I’m not quite sure he understands what “imply” actually means. Of course, anytime anyone uses the dictionary to confront the Social Justice League is often roundly criticized for using the actual meaning of a word instead of what they wish it to mean.
Let’s start with this sentence:
In truth, atheism absolutely does have implications beyond mere absence of belief in supernatural father figures. A world without gods to take responsibility for everything is a world where we ourselves are responsible.
No, no, atheism has no implications beyond the non-belief in god(s). There are no moral considerations. Yes, we are all responsible for our moral compass but that applies to all humans, not just atheists.
He then separates atheism into two different forms: god-slayer and truth-seeker. Again, words mean something. Slay means to “kill violently”. Well, atheists aren’t trying to kill any god, that would mean that atheists believe there was a god, which is clearly not the case.
Of course the truth-seeker is the one that seems to utilize reason in coming to atheism:
They’ve taken an honest look at the facts and found religion wanting. The truth-seeker rejects the idea of gods, not out of spite or any anti-social motivations, but because the evidence is not consistent with any of the theistic religions being true. It’s a question of right versus wrong, and theism just isn’t right.
That’s a peculiar thing to say. I think that all atheists came to their non-belief by examining the facts and finding that there weren’t any to support a belief in any god(s).
Then, of course, the god-slayer seems to be less of a person of reason. In fact, it appears that the god-slayer have no compass whatsoever.
He says rather bluntly, is that the god-slayer(dictionary atheist) cares less about right versus wrong, and more about winning versus losing. To the god-slayer, it’s all about dominance, and power; and for such, the appeal of atheism is not so much that it’s right, but more that it provides the tools with which to destroy the beliefs and credibility of others.
I have absolutely no idea what he’s talking about here. This is one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read from a so-called “atheist”. It actually sounds more like something a fundamentalist theist would say.
But he’s not through with you god-slayers! Not by half:
…they (the god-slayers) actually prefer the image of the amoral, self-seeking atheist because it fits better into their preferred narrative of the atheist as a dangerous and unpredictable outlaw that nobody dares to mess with.
I wonder how it is that he comes to such an outrageous conclusion? Again, using words I don’t believe he understands (amoral, self-seeking, outlaw). This just seems to be a rant and has no basis in fact.
The entire post is nothing more than a rant against those that refuse to accept the Social Justice Leagues own definition of atheism.
He goes on, and on, and on, for a couple of interminable paragraphs letting everyone know that the god-slayers are small, angry, whatever. It’s just too much for anyone with more than a first grade education to take.
Then comes the coup de gras:
“Elevator-gate”, “GamerGate”, and a host of other major and minor scandals and abuses, are all manifestations of the eons-long conflict between the truth-seekers and the god-slayers, and they’re only becoming more prominent now because of the rise—and successes—of the truth-seekers.
Oh, that hurts!(not). This really shows what the entire piece (rant) is about. The Social Justice League are the ones that are really angry; they’re angry that most atheists reject their “brand” and their attempts to demonize those atheists that will not come into the fold.
The final sentence tells us all what The Social Justice League think of the 99% that reject their religion:
The god-seeker side is ultimately self-defeating. And the sooner the better, too.
They just want us to go away. They want to control the dialogue. they, and only they speak for atheism.
No. No you don’t.
10 thoughts on “Atheism Doesn’t ‘Imply’ Anything”
I’ve been thinking a little about why so many atheists turn to Marxism, which SJL seems to be the latest incarnation of. And I suspect it’s because it’s the most famous (and possibly only) explicitly atheistic irreligious ethics system. That it makes little sense beyond giving people enemies to hate seems of little concern to adherents ….
“Well, atheists aren’t trying to kill any god, that would mean that atheists believe there was a god, which is clearly not the case.”
Not necessarily. Could mean that some atheists are working to slay the idea of God. I happen to be one of them. I think the world would be better if people would abandon their belief in God. So I do what I can to move us closer to achieving this objective.
“I think that all atheists came to their non-belief by examining the facts and finding that there weren’t any to support a belief in any god(s).”
Thinking a thing does not make it true. I have known and know today atheists who came to their atheism initiallyfor emotional reasons: they became angry with their religion first. For these people the means you describe came after their initial conversion. My point is it is inaccurate that all atheists arrived at atheism through a rational process of examining the evidence.
“…they’re angry that most atheists reject their “brand” and their attempts to demonize those atheists that will not come into the fold.”
I am curious to know how you know that “most atheists reject” the atheism you are objecting to in this post?
Stephan, if you think the so-called SJL is marxist then you clearly don’t understand the difference between liberalism and marxism.
I find is perplexing that the term Social Justice League and Social Justice Warrior are used by some atheists as a insult. I am aware of the Urban Dictionary definition of social justice warrior. I find it laughable. Obviously made up by someone who has a twisted, distorted understanding of social justice; a person who possibly did not actually believe in social justice.
I know very well the difference between liberalism and Marxism. Unfortunately, I see little evidence beyond slogans that Social Justice is actually liberal, and there is much to suggest it’s a branch of Maoist Marxism warmed over. It seems to incorporate academic feminism for one, which is basically a development of Maoism. Worse, Critical Theory appears to be Marxist too, by their own admission.
That Social Justice Warrior is an insult is not that hard to understand. SJW is basically a term for an evil person professing Social Justice. And from what we can glean from meeting these people, there appears to be very little to recommend this theory, as a good one should have been able to prevent the actual behaviour. And many of them do in fact rail against capitalism and privileges.
Of course, if you have a link to a description of this theory beyond the slogans I have seen so far, I’d be willing to reconsider. Meanwhile, a theory actually associated with past liberalism is Stoicism. That one appears to be confirmed by modern virtue ethicists.
“… there is much to suggest it’s a branch of Maoist Marxism warmed over.”
Then please provide this evidence or source material that leads you to this conclusion. This assertion just sounds to me liked warmed over conservative horseshit.
I am a social justice advocate. I am a liberal. I do not subscribe to any brand of Marxism.
“SJW is basically a term for an evil person professing Social Justice.”
Then you are railing against a mythological being. None of the people who advocate social justice are evil. If you think they are then I think you have reinterpreted/redefined the word evil to suit your own need to criticize those with whom you disagree.
I know many liberals and many of the people whom you label as SJW’s. None of them are evil. I think this is a characterization you have concocted to justify efforts to demonize these people.
“And many of them do in fact rail against capitalism and privileges.”
Railing against capitalism and privileges does not make one a marxist. I too am a critic of capitalism. Criticizing an idea does not mean you reject the idea entirely. I think capitalism has done good. It has also done much harm. Capitalism as currently practiced in this country deserves much of the criticism it has received.
Social Justice is not a theory so much as it is a set of principles and objectives. How the hell can a person be opposed to social justice and consider themselves to be ethical and/or moral?
“…a theory actually associated with past liberalism is Stoicism.”
Says who? Is it not possible for a conservative to be a stoic?
I take it you don’t spend much time on Twitter, then, nor other social media. There’s the A+ group, PZ Myers and FtB, and of course the Block Bot. All of them claimed to belong to Social Justice. You need to look around, not just stay in your little bubble. SJWs actually exist, they just don’t act that way towards you yet, which is how you don’t know.
And if those slogans really are all there is, I’m going to have to say you have been hijacked.
Also, I take issue with this sentence: “None of the people who advocate social justice are evil.” Citation needed. In my experience, there definitely are some, unless they are good by definition. Check out the Block Bot crew, or the Anti-Gamergaters (though I may be mistaken in assigning the label to the latter group.)
In short, there are problems with the label. And instead of criticising the disenchanted, police your own.
Also, I’m a liberal. Just not easily fooled, and quite suspicious of ideology.
About your question of whether a Stoic can be conservative and still be Stoic. The Stoic goal, to be pursued over all others, is virtue, whether individually or legally. The tests for virtue are justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation. So the Stoic should not be overly conservative, nor radically revolutionary. Instead, he might side with conservatives if they are right, radicals if they are, and generally would choose the middle path, the path of wisdom. What I meant by past association is that Stoicism in part inspired liberalism.
You are correct in your assumption about Twitter, Facebook and other such social media. I don’t spend any time on them. I think them a complete waste of time. I do read a number of blogs, including many of those who blog at FtB. None of them are evil. They can be quite and unduly harsh in their criticism. But this does not make a person evil. So I don’t accept your description of them as evil.
I don’t live in a bubble anymore than you do. I am aware that PZ Myers and the A+ crowd are social justice advocates. This does not make them evil. Yes, SJW’s do exist. But they aren’t what you think them to be. The use of SJW as an insult is a perverse use of a term that refers to a worthy cause. Social Justice as a set of principles and objectives is a worthy cause. To be candid, the use of SJW as a epithet is simply stupid in my opinion.
“And if those slogans really are all there is, I’m going to have to say you have been hijacked.”
I have no idea what you mean here. I don’t even know what slogans you are talking about. I never said that social justice consists only of slogans.
As for you demanding that I provide a citation that social justice advocates are not evil, one is not needed. A person who advocates social justice and works for this cause by definition is not evil. You are the one who claimed that those whom you say are SJW’s or members of the Social Justice League – a fictitious entity if ever there was one – are evil. It is incumbent upon you to prove that they are.
Who are the Block Bot crew? I read about Block Bot. What is your problem with it? I likely would not use it myself if I used Twitter or other similar social media. But I haven’t any objection to others using it if they so choose.
As for the Anti-Gamergaters, I am not sure of whom are speaking. But if it is whom I suspect you are referring to then I think you are simply wrong on this one. There is nothing evil about those persons who have been criticizing the gaming culture, nor those who have been criticizing those who have engaged in vicious, ugly, hateful verbal attacks of the critics. In fact, if there is anything that can or should be described as evil being said by anyone involved in this controversy, it is those gamers and defenders of the gamers who have been making death and rape threats.
“In short, there are problems with the label.”
If you mean the SJW label, I agree there is a problem with it. But the problem is with those of you who are using it as an insult.
If by “policing my own” you mean I should not criticize you and others who use the SJW label in the way you do, then you are wasting your time saying so. I’ll criticize whomever I see fit to criticize.
I subscribe to the values and principles of secular humanism and the consequentialist system of ethics. I am familiar with virtue ethics, but find little that is appealing in this brand of ethics. My liberalism is a product of my secular humanism.
In what way did Stoicism inspire liberalism? I have not heard of this connection before. I’d like to read a little on this connection. What works discussing this connection would you recommend?
About Myers et al, I am afraid I shall have to disagree. Anyone who has been accused by them in later years know they base accusations on little or no evidence, and basically libels them. Furthermore, their criticisms are indeed based on Marxism, so if you think they are liberal, you have been fooled. Same for anti-gamergaters. Libel, and disturbingly, faked threats. Apparently, gamergaters do not have enough psychopaths among us, so they have to make them up. Criticism can be illegitimate.
And the label I had in mind was “Social Justice,” by the way. Also, that you define social justice advocates as automatically good is very telling. Evil is very much about behaviour, and nobody is good by definition.
About the Stoic connection with Liberalism, this looks good: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/grampp-economic-liberalism-vol-1-the-beginnings