The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

pH

So Richard Dawkins just got himself "uninvited" from NECSS 2016
https://archive.is/UPRBU

For this tweet:
https://tweetsave.com/richarddawkins/status/692033018970705920

And here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

It's a SyeTenAtheist video but posted on Sargon's YT channel, one of the funniest things I have seen in a while

The usual crowd screamed "harassment" and "abuse"

Shrap

That is actually hilarious.....and profoundly disturbing at the same time. Oh boy, I'd say the outrage could have been measured on the Richter Scale!


*gets shed-load of popcorn for the fallout of this one*

Michael OBrien

"We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations."

Yeah, because a retweet with a disclaimer he does not think most feminists are like that and he is a feminist himself, but a minority of them can be like what we see in the video, goes beyond free speech. Disgraceful decision. I hope people who planned on attending pull out, including some of the speakers in protest.

As far as the video goes, I did not find it very funny but it makes some interesting points. Sye Ten Atheist videos are a bit hit and miss at times.

Shrap

Michael OBrien wrote: »

As far as the video goes, I did not find it very funny but it makes some interesting points. Sye Ten Atheist videos are a bit hit and miss at times.

Totally agree with you, and just to clarify, I only found it funny because of how intensively and shockingly offensive it is!

nozzferrahhtoo

I saw PZ Myers rush to misrepresent this one yesterday too. I have to admit I am baffled. Someone, not Richard Dawkins, made a video generalizing Muslims and Feminists.... Dawkins re-tweeted it saying that it does NOT represent the VAST majority of feminists..... and people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

So quoting or referencing something you disagree with.... and pointing out you disagree with it.... NOW means you can be attacked vicariously for the position you rebutted rather than for your rebuttal of that position?

The world of discourse really is changing in ways I never would have predicted.

magicbastarder

by gum, that video is appallingly ****e.

Shrap

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dawkins re-tweeted it saying that it does NOT represent the VAST majority of feminists..... and people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

I imagine it was the implication that it does represent the minority of pernicious feminists that did it. Even the implication that a minority of feminists are pernicious wouldn't have gone over well in a climate where people are too afraid or stupid to call out the extreme feminist discourse as utterly hypocritical.

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

by gum, that video is appallingly ****e.

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

In all fairness, PZ Myers does not have a history of delivering carefully-considered, surgical wordstrikes.

Bristolscale7

Fairly stupid of him to tweet that video.

Shrap

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Fairly stupid of him to tweet that video.

This may shed some light on the boo-boo he made actually. Here's a tweet of his from last night:

Having learned that the woman in the joke song is a real person who has been disgracefully threatened with violence, I'm deleting my tweets.

yellowlabrador

I liked that video.
Some of the strident, misandrist feminists need to wake up. They also need to connect with ordinary women and find out what life is all about. Just look at the advice given to women after the Koln rape and pillage. They don't like men but I also think they don't like ordinary women.

MrPudding

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

No.

MrP

Shrap

yellowlabrador wrote: »

They don't like men but I also think they don't like ordinary women.

I don't like anyone who tries to make a "them" and "us" out of any issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shrap wrote: »

I imagine it was the implication that it does represent the minority of pernicious feminists that did it. Even the implication that a minority of feminists are pernicious wouldn't have gone over well in a climate where people are too afraid or stupid to call out the extreme feminist discourse as utterly hypocritical.

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion.

I think every movement has to recognize, identify, oppose and marginalize those pernicious elements within them. If you want to be part of any movement, this is essentially part of the admin work you should expect. And as with so many things in life the first step to doing that, is admitting the problem is there.

If one finds oneself getting haughty and uppity when someone else points out the existence of these elements, then one has a problem that is deserving of some quite introspection. Because they ARE there, and they SHOULD be pointed out. Internally and externally.

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

Nah I did too, albeit only mildly. Caricaturing extreme stereotypes while knowing that is your intent, can by very humorous when done right as a comic genre. And that is what this video APPEARS to be doing (I can not say as I do not know the channel or what they usually produce).

But this one and it's contents were just a little TOO easy. Long hanging fruit and all that. It does not scream effort or inventiveness or creativity to me.

Bristolscale7

double post!

Bristolscale7

The preoccupation with feminism is not helpful. When Dawkins and a few others are continually chastising feminists because they won't denounce Islam it reminds me of the early Christians screaming at Jews for not recognizing Jesus as their messiah. Certainly all feminists should recognize the inherent misogeny in Islam, but if they don't identify this as a strategic priority then whatever.

magicbastarder

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

i just found it obvious and banal.

magicbastarder

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The preoccupation with feminism is not helpful.

yeah, there's a certain amount of 'if you're not with us, you're against us, and if you're against us, you're all the same'.

Bristolscale7

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, there's a certain amount of 'if you're not with us, you're against us, and if you're against us, you're all the same'.

There are much more interesting conversations to be had with feminists. For example, how does gender as a category relate to race and class in terms of advantage/disadvantage.

stunmer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Someone, not Richard Dawkins, made a video generalizing Muslims Islamists and Feminists....

Sorry to be pernickety but the above correction is necessary.

GLaDOS

That video is truely painful to watch

One eyed Jack

pH wrote: »

So Richard Dawkins just got himself "uninvited" from NECSS 2016

Poor Dicky, promoting critical thinking through thoughtless tweeting.

I don't think it will do his public profile any harm. Being uninvited from public speaking events nowadays seems to garner more publicity and a greater audience than ever being invited to speak at these events in the first place.

orubiru

I have to say I don't like the video itself (too annoying) but if others think it's funny then fair enough. It's meant to entertain a specific audience. Nothing wrong with that.

Dawkins tweet is "Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious."

He is saying that it doesn't apply to most feminists.
He is saying that he is a feminist himself.

Yet, he is being treated like some kind of heathen? What gives?

I am not really understanding how Feminist Atheists can look at a skeptic such as Dawkins and think that it's going to be possible to hold him up as their "champion" for criticizing Christians whilst also expecting him to avoid all criticism of Muslims and Feminists? He is obviously never going to do that.

I feel like we are expected to become a kind of "Selective Skeptic" where it's OK to be skeptical so long as you don't question certain protected ideologies?

What is the thing to take away from this? That there is now a "zero tolerance" policy on any and all criticism of Feminism?

Nodin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion..............

I hate to imagine the velocity when he speeds up.

orubiru

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion.

I'd guess that a problem encountered by a lot of atheists is the old argument that "atheism is just another belief" or "atheism is a religion too".

The obvious rebuttal to that is to point out that "off" is not a television channel or that boiled water is not a type of tea.

Then you get characters like PZ Myers who come along and basically want to treat Atheism like a religion. Atheists need to behave a certain way and need to live up to a certain standard and support certain causes. They'd go as far as proposing that such a thing be labelled "Atheism+" because being a Humanist is not cool or something?

Bill could be an comic book reading, video game playing, rich white guy. Bill could be in charge of a huge corporation that pays women 77% of what it pays men. Bill could refuse to employ minorities and Bill will never install a wheelchair ramp at head office. Bill could hate "The Gays" and Bill could shout "nice ass" at the ladies from the window of his limo. Bill lacks belief in God. Is Bill an Atheist?

It seems like PZ and co would be genuinely interested in arguing that no, Bill is not a TRUE Atheist.

As far as I am concerned, "atheist" is a great description for your lack of belief in a God. As an identity, "Atheist" is not really a great one.

Instead of just accepting that someone who lacks belief is an atheist by definition, they want to build up this "Cult of Atheism" that comes with it's own tenets and code of conduct.

The very idea that someone can "give Atheism a bad name" is ridiculous.

All they are doing is playing into the hands of these Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Josh Feuerstein types who will try to paint atheism as just another religion with it's own beliefs etc. Hey look over here, the Atheists can't even make up their minds about their own belief system.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

I'd guess that a problem encountered by a lot of atheists is the old argument that "atheism is just another belief" or "atheism is a religion too".

...

Instead of just accepting that someone who lacks belief is an atheist by definition, they want to build up this "Cult of Atheism" that comes with it's own tenets and code of conduct.

The very idea that someone can "give Atheism a bad name" is ridiculous.

I'd never think of atheism as a religion, because of course that's just silly, but I think that's one of the problems faced by people who wish to promote atheism in society, is that there really is no common and cohesive movement. There really isn't anything to atheism only a lack of belief in a deity or deities (or an absence of belief if a person never had any belief in the first place, some people point to the fact that they aren't lacking anything, and that it is religious people who are lacking something that they have to fill the void with religion), and so I think that's why some people came up with the idea of Atheism+ (which I think is a load of nonsense btw). I've also seen campaigns that borrow from identity politics to try and promote atheism -


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_Campaign


I just think that Atheism, as a movement, is in crisis, because the more public it becomes, the more under attack it is, and I think some of the more prominent figures do themselves no favours on social media. For example I looked at a few of that Sargon guys YouTube videos, or TheAmazingAtheist, or thunderf00t, and tbh they come off like woeful knobs!

I know you're saying that the idea that someone can give atheism a bad name is ridiculous, but I do wonder - have Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers become like the Germaine Greer of Atheism?

Gone are the days of intellectual rigour and intelligent discourse, replaced by bitter bastards with a victim complex on social media. I really do wonder are they doing their own cause any favours.


Speaking of the absence of intellectual rigour, Sargon's commentary on the latest social media storm in a teacup exemplifies what I was referring to earlier -

He's in no position to question anyone else's lack of self-awareness.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd never think of atheism as a religion, because of course that's just silly, but I think that's one of the problems faced by people who wish to promote atheism in society, is that there really is no common and cohesive movement. There really isn't anything to atheism only a lack of belief in a deity or deities

I just think that Atheism, as a movement, is in crisis

Which is it?

Also, 'Atheism is in crisis' - LOL is all the response required to that.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is it?

I was allowing for the fact that some people who are atheist see Atheism as a movement, and some people who are atheist, do not, hence why I suggested there was a lack of cohesion that would see real progress being made within the atheist community (for those people who see themselves as part of a community of atheists).

Also, 'Atheism is in crisis' - LOL is all the response required to that.

LOL is often all the response that is required to a lot of discussions on here, but at least I make an effort to engage in the discussion. Perhaps the online echo-chamber effect allows you to forget, for a little while at least, that atheism is squarely in a minority position in the offline world.

Bristolscale7

You understand that an act of god would be required for atheism to be in crisis?

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

You understand that an act of god would be required for atheism to be in crisis?

When I say that Atheism is in crisis, I mean that as an ideology, it hasn't made much progress, it's still an ideology that is squarely in a minority, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any traction on a global scale to pose any serious threat to theism.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps the online echo-chamber effect

If you think this place is bad, have you seen the Christianity forum?

allows you to forget, for a little while at least, that atheism is squarely in a minority position in the offline world.

More popular is right, obviously...
Don't forget it's not that long ago that in most societies expressing an atheistic viewpoint would leave you liable to losing your head or being toasted at the stake. This is still the case today in some places. Why can't followers of religion leave such matters to their god to sort out?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say that Atheism is in crisis, I mean that as an ideology

Atheism is not an ideology
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is not a movement
Atheism is not a belief

it hasn't made much progress, it's still an ideology that is squarely in a minority, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any traction on a global scale to pose any serious threat to theism.

Why is religion in crisis in all enlightened societies then? Everywhere in the world where ignorance and poverty are in decline, so is religion.

py2006

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say that Atheism is in crisis, I mean that as an ideology, it hasn't made much progress, it's still an ideology that is squarely in a minority, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any traction on a global scale to pose any serious threat to theism.

Atheism is certainly not in crisis. I'm not sure how it could be. Religion certainly in this country could be considered in crisis because of its decline. You only have to look at the dwindling church attendance and the age range of those that do attend. I can see churches closing and having to share with other parishes (which was mentioned somewhere recently)

Also I'm not entierely Atheism is an ideology?

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Atheism is not an ideology
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is not a movement
Atheism is not a belief

that's the worst poem i've read today. it doesn't even rhyme.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you think this place is bad, have you seen the Christianity forum?

I have to be honest, I rarely ever venture in there as the discussions, well, they're just not particularly interesting as here tbh. Here at least there's a broad range of topics all in one forum, whether it be science, politics, education, sociology, etc, and there's a bit of humour thrown in too!

More popular is right, obviously...
Don't forget it's not that long ago that in most societies expressing an atheistic viewpoint would leave you liable to losing your head or being toasted at the stake. This is still the case today in some places. Why can't followers of religion leave such matters to their god to sort out?

Because some followers of religion aren't satisfied with keeping their beliefs to themselves and want to exhort power and control over other people, and religion seems like just as good an excuse as any IMO. Well, that's the way it appears to me at least. I really couldn't give you a comprehensive answer on that one. I'm sure most people mean well, but just the same as in any community really - there will always be that minority who give a bad impression of the majority within that community.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Atheism is not an ideology
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is not a movement
Atheism is not a belief

While I agree with you that atheism is neither a belief nor a religion, I don't think I'm being disrespectful when i refer to Atheism as an ideology or as a movement (some people can't even agree as to whether it should be 'atheism' or 'Atheism', 'atheist' or 'Atheist', i usually go with the 'A' when referring to Atheism as an ideology, and 'a' when referring to an atheist).

Why is religion in crisis in all enlightened societies then? Everywhere in the world where ignorance and poverty are in decline, so is religion.

And therein lies the problem - how many enlightened societies are you aware of? I'm not aware of too many apart from a few first world European countries. There's a reason i said globally, because religion isn't in crisis globally. If anything, it's expanding, because 84% of the world still lives in ignorance and poverty, and I don't see enlightened intellectuals too willing to address that glaring disparity any time soon. Sure they'll point it out and say "What kind of a God would allow for this to happen?", but that's about the extent of their altruism, and then they'll complain about the religious organisations exploiting the ignorant and impoverished while there was nothing preventing them from organising themselves to do something about it.

I truly despair sometimes for all that intellect and enlightenment going to waste.

pH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I saw PZ Myers rush to misrepresent this one yesterday too. I have to admit I am baffled. Someone, not Richard Dawkins, made a video generalizing Muslims and Feminists.

I'm sorry but how does it generalize Muslims and Feminists? - for a starter the video doesn't mention muslims - the word in the title is "Islamist"

Islamism, also known as Political Islam (Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ islām siyāsī), is an Islamic revival movement often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt "to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life."

Secondly the 2 people being caricatured are:

The lady is Chanty Brinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_ZryBfCtU

And the gentleman is "Dawah man", who has been "no platformed" himself by University of East London for saying homosexuality was “filthy disease”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11419088/Radical-preacher-at-Islamic-charity-event-promotes-extremism.html

yellowlabrador

How can atheism be an ideology?There's no 'right' way or 'wrong' way of being an atheist.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

I thought it was a bit funny, and I think lampooning is a great way to get people to think about things from another point of view. But not funny enough to be worth retweeting, or offensive enough to be worth banning people from speaking or threatening them with violence.

Though I admit I can think of very little indeed that's worth banning people from speaking or threatening them with violence for, so maybe I'm an outlier in that regard.

colossus-x

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Atheism is not an ideology
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is not a movement
Atheism is not a belief

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's the worst poem i've read today. it doesn't even rhyme.

What he should have said was:

Atheism is not an ideology
- I think your into codology

Atheism is not a religion
- I regard that idea with derision

Atheism is not a movement
- I read that with some amusement

Atheism is not a belief
- and we've no commander and chief

colossus-x

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just think that Atheism, as a movement, is in crisis, because the more public it becomes, the more under attack it is, and I think some of the more prominent figures do themselves no favours on social media. For example I looked at a few of that Sargon guys YouTube videos, or TheAmazingAtheist, or thunderf00t, and tbh they come off like woeful knobs!

I know you're saying that the idea that someone can give atheism a bad name is ridiculous, but I do wonder - have Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers become like the Germaine Greer of Atheism?

Gone are the days of intellectual rigour and intelligent discourse, replaced by bitter bastards with a victim complex on social media. I really do wonder are they doing their own cause any favours.

All those points are completely irrelevant to atheists. Atheist don't 'follow' anyone aside from subscribing to their youtube channel. That's the mindset of a religious person who has great difficulty in understanding the complete opposite of their own way of thinking.

It could be true what you say about those guys being knob-heads but it's doesn't matter a jot. No one becomes an atheist because of what any of them say. All that is required is non-belief in God. All that chatter is just mild amusement and if they say something stupid no atheist is gonna flip and become a theist because of it.

Absolam

colossus-x wrote: »

What he should have said was:

Atheism is not an ideology
- I think your into codology

Atheism is not a religion
- I regard that idea with derision

Atheism is not a movement
- I read that with some amusement

Atheism is not a belief
- and we've no commander and chief

Oddly reminiscent of Fezzik....

One eyed Jack

colossus-x wrote: »

All those points are completely irrelevant to atheists.

You've spoken to them all then and they've given you permission to speak on behalf of atheists then? Or is it simply more likely that you can realistically only speak about what is or isn't relevant to you as an atheist?

Atheist don't 'follow' anyone aside from subscribing to their youtube channel.

I never said anything about atheists following anyone. I spoke of those high profile personalities as examples of atheists, not people anyone would necessarily base their opinion of atheists upon, if they have any common sense at least.

That's the mindset of a religious person who has great difficulty in understanding the complete opposite of their own way of thinking.

The above is the mindset of someone who hasn't read a post properly and had definitely misunderstood what was being said.

It could be true what you say about those guys being knob-heads but it's doesn't matter a jot. No one becomes an atheist because of what any of them say. All that is required is non-belief in God. All that chatter is just mild amusement and if they say something stupid no atheist is gonna flip and become a theist because of it.

Clearly it does matter, or Dicky wouldn't have been uninvited for his latest twitter titsup. I never said any atheist was likely to become a theist because of it, but there are many theists who will never hear the benefits of atheism if these representatives of atheism keep getting themselves "no-platformed" and unable to speak, silenced and banned from public spaces and social media.

nozzferrahhtoo

orubiru wrote: »

As an identity, "Atheist" is not really a great one.

Preaching to the converted here. I am one of those that do not actually use or identify myself with the term "atheist" at all except on very rare occasion where I require a term of convenience to keep a block of prose short.

I prefer to identify myself with terms that describe what I am, not what I am not. I have no issue with people who DO use the term, so it is no slight or judgement on them. I just do not do so myself.

orubiru wrote: »

The very idea that someone can "give Atheism a bad name" is ridiculous.

Agreed, but in the post you were replying to from me I was less talking about atheism as a term, rather than as a movement. That is to say the multiple associations and organisations that have arisen in the name of atheism.... AI, AAI, and so on and so forth..... and how any such movement will have bad and pernicious minority elements.

We appear for the most part to acknowledge the existence of the ones in ours. I certainly do at least. But we can see from the reaction to Dawkins pointing out minority pernicious elements in Feminism as a movement how some people react to it being pointed out in THEIRS.

It is all too easy and common, I guess, for humans to misrepresent and generalise people behind a label. It can be done with any label. Many atheists generalise Christians for example.

But the less a label actually says about who you are, the easier it is to pack the straw men tight. Atheism is often about what a person is not, and very little about what a person IS, so misrepresentation of atheism and atheists abound. From the "Atheists have no hope in life" type comment all the way up to "Look what atheism did in China and Russia" type comments.

Feminism likely suffers from the same thing. Not because it says as little about what you are as atheism does, but because many people..... myself included..... are not even clear what "feminism" even is any more. For me it means little more than being blind.... in all but a few cases.... to sex at all. Not seeing, or thinking in any way relevant, what sex a person is when deciding how to treat them, interact them, or parse anything they do or say.

I would be a "feminist" in that regard, but like "Atheist" I do not find I require "feminist" as a label or descriptive term for myself and more than I feel I need "colorist" or "aracist" or something to describe my lack of any form of discrimination against people of other races or colors.

For some others it is a tribal "us against them" movement where women somehow have to "win" against men, or women are somehow "oppressed" and have to fight some revolution, and that man hating women need to be educated or defeated in some way, or some war is at play that needs to be "won" somehow.

orubiru wrote: »

Hey look over here, the Atheists can't even make up their minds about their own belief system.

Hahah true, but it would be a comical move from them given Christianity has well over 33,000 sects, off shots, cults, branches and forms. Many of them with not just differing, but entirely irreconcilable, truth claims. So they would be the _last_ people I could think of who have any form of pedestal from which to admonish others on clarifying their belief systems.

nozzferrahhtoo

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry but how does it generalize Muslims and Feminists? - for a starter the video doesn't mention muslims - the word in the title is "Islamist"

Yes someone else already corrected my use of the term Muslim. It was unimportant to me really as the point I made remains the same.

If a video generalises (or even people THINK it does whether it does or not)..... a group X..... and someone shares the video and says it is NOT representative of group X....... then attacking that someone for offending group X is a bit ridiculous.

And that core point is not affected by whether I say Muslim or Islamist.... or whether the video actually does generalize the group or not.

Boskowski

Not terribly original or funny, in fact you'd wonder why anyone would put so much effort into something that dimwitted and childish. And while I'd be the last person to defend either group here at boards I think we'd call that trolling.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I make an effort to engage in the discussion.

Now that _is_ funny.

Amusement aside however I do not see atheism as "in crisis" at all. Not when more than one Pew type office of statistics has acknowledged it to be the fastest rising minority in places like the US. And articles were only in multiple news sources this week about Atheism as the UKs hidden silent majority.

And meanwhile the business of selling lies to children, lies such as virgin births and magic crackers.... lies which you too have apparently been sold and subscribe to as true for no reason you care to explain in your alleged campaign of wanting to engage in discussion..... is far from as lucrative for the CEOs and front line plebs as it used to be. With Mass attendance on the down in countries like our own, parishes being amalgamated due to lack of funds and vocations, and existing priests taking pay cuts and even complaining in some cases of having to take second jobs. And in many places vocations and funds are in fact so low that they not only have to merge parishes, but they have to import priests from places like Africa (The parish I live in here in Bavaria in Kreis Aschaffenburg is one of multiple examples).

You refer to the "out" campaign in a previous post and that is a good example. The purpose of that campaign is to acknowledge that there is some statistical "tipping point" that a minority can reach where suddenly a cascade of change results. There are parallels to draw there to the movements around homosexuality.

But I think it is also not in crisis given that the perpetuation of atheism is not actually the goal or ideal of the majority of atheists or atheist organisations like Atheist Ireland. Rather the perpetuation of things like Humanism and Secularism is.

So what is the nature of the "crisis" you imagine exactly? The only thing you have offered / suggested is that as it becomes more public, the more it, or it's proponents, get "attacked". I do not see that as a crisis, or even a bad thing. I see it as a measure of it's success, it's position trending in the minds of the public, and I see it as entirely the norm for ANY movement that starts taking on any kind of momentum.

And in fact many of those attacks are a good thing. Some of them are so ridiculous, such nonsense, and so unsubstantiated that they validate a mantra I have all too often repeated on this very forum. Which is that sometimes the best way to damage the cause and agenda of religion is to _keep the religious talking_.

They do more to damage the credibility and agenda of their own cause than anything I or the likes of Atheist Ireland can do or say. Take the posts of the likes of J C on this forum, or the insane ramblings of people like Bill O'Reilly or ISIS. They have their followers sure, some quite vehement, but over all their affect is a detriment to religion.

So let the "attacks" come! In a war of ideas, on the stage of open and honest discourse, we have the higher ground. They are on our turf now. Bring it! And we will see just who is in "crisis" here.

orubiru

Boskowski wrote: »

Not terribly original or funny, in fact you'd wonder why anyone would put so much effort into something that dimwitted and childish. And while I'd be the last person to defend either group here at boards I think we'd call that trolling.

Yes, it is blatant trolling.

I'm not really sure I understand why someone like Dawkins would be sharing it in the first place.

Unless he thinks the video makes some good points? I'm not really seeing it.

Bristolscale7

What time did he post the original tweet? Maybe it was late and he had a few glasses of wine.

silverharp

It made me chuckle , two ideologies that have warped views of the world , I get it.

orubiru

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say that Atheism is in crisis, I mean that as an ideology, it hasn't made much progress, it's still an ideology that is squarely in a minority, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any traction on a global scale to pose any serious threat to theism.

Atheism isn't an ideology though. It's a lack of belief in God(s). That's it.

How can something like that make progress?

A: Do you believe in God?
B: No.
...10 years later...
A: Do you believe in God?
B: No.

Boiled Water isn't a type of Tea.
Off is not a TV channel.

I don't really understand the insistence that "Atheism is a religion" or "Atheism is an Ideology". Can you explain it for me?