On Feminism, Activism and Isms

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/social-justice-less-elitist/

But sometimes those same activist cultures can be unnecessarily exclusive – and worse, inaccessible and elitist. I even feel myself doing it sometimes:

 Or why I abandoned the "Feminist movement" in the'70s in spite of being a milk feminist. My first mistake was suggesting that an attack on "man/men" as generic was a mistake. That they should have promoted a gender specific noun for males corresponding to women, something like heman or heeman. Nope. We got to get rid of man in chairman, workman, "All Men are created equal." etc. Look how well that worked several decades later.  Well, it is a fact that all the chairs are no longer chairman of this or that and that all of the significant chairs still have men's butts glued to them.  It is also a fact that "All people are created equal" unless they are female, or non-Caucasian.  (At least they changed the box from Caucasian to white and then fucked that up by including "Hispanic" for all non-Caucasian whites.)

Over the years I have discovered that anything that appears to be a meeting of anything resembling believers is almost certainly not user friendly for anyone but the organizers and true believers.  I find it much more useful to let others attend and read the blogs and reports of the attendees, which are either ignorable dogma or tales of exclusion, prejudice and harassment. Even "freethinkers" like skeptics and atheists are surprisingly dogmatic.  In discussing paranormal phenomenon I have lost count of the times I have heard that "Randi's million dollar prize proves that the paranormal cannot exit." Atheists are not content to ignore God and gods in their daily lives, they must prove that gods necessarily cannot exist for anybody and that all religions are horrible abusers of believers.   .  

The excuse for all the sins of the activists is that they are raising awareness, and that in order to do so the message must be focused and consistent, that is reflect the narrow and exclusionary views of the promoters.   

But it taught me a valuable lesson: the best way to support any -ism or activist is to walk their talk. It is not surprising as we see in the article, how many of the -ists don't.  I wonder how many people or corporations who wear pink ribbons on their persons or products have ever done anything at all to help with treatment or research into breast cancer except to throw some chump change into some charity without even running a Navigator on the charity?  Have the GLBTQ activists done anything but create reaction and hate for their GLBTQ neighbors walking their talk by living working, raising children, and proving to their neighbors and churches that they are simply human?  Does posting your Black Lives Matter vid of police brutality on the web do anything but insure the Police, their captive prosecutors, and the media will insure justice denied? See: what to do with your arrest video.

Activism works, but it does not involve going to meetings and talking tactics.  Get a bunch of your friends together go to the city council meeting, the planning commission meeting, or if you have a lot of friends to Washington DC (Social media helps coordinate things but use email and secret groups on Facebook.  It won't stay secret but it is hard to disrupt.) While you are there making sure all of your friends are registered to vote, and will do so if only to vote the incumbents out. 

The other form of activism is using any position of privilege you might have to affirmatively support any challenge to injustice you know about.  If your significant others are challenging the system make sure that you use your LinkedIn network to help even at the cost of burning some of your own bridges. If you have that video of brutality or bullying on your thumb drive, don't just tell the victim it is there, tell them you will appear on their behalf.     

An Atheist Feminist Shouts Bullshit.

beliefnet

Atheists like most arbitrary groups tend to reflect the dominant mores of the society in which they are embedded.  I suspect that male feminists are as unusual in atheist groups as in any other that doesn't have misogyny as a central group tenet. 

Atheists generally have weak belief systems, and therefore might be influenced more by advocacy groups with a useful message.  Many won't listen, even weak belief systems are hard to counter, but I suspect that feminism will generally find fertile ground in the rapidly growing atheist and secular part of the overall society. 

And you're basing this on survey and polling data, right? Not just on anectdote and making shit up?   Fematheist

False dichotomy.  In any event survey and polling data finds whatever the constructor of the survey or poll wants to find.  See any partisan political poll.  Did you ever hear of or write a "push poll?"  If not why not?  You claim to be a social scientist, you must have been taught about them in something like Surveys 101.

Unbiased observation of convention activity, social functions, and comments of members of a study group are much more reliable than any poll or survey unless you have access to the actual questions asked in the poll, the demographic of the polling subjects, and the bias of the poll constructor.  Got any?  Or are all your observations and data biased by feminist activism?

I am sorry, are you suggesting that because some companies polls do push calling that gives you the right to just make bullshit up on these boards and pass it off as reality? Is that SERIOUSLY what your argument is?  Attacking bad polling instead of defending or evening acknowleding the bullshit you just MADE UP?

I would call that a fundy evasion tactic there, JC.Fematheist

You can call it anything you like from your social science ivory tower.  I am not talking about company or think tank push polls, I am talking about the biased polls and surveys from proper respected academic departments in economics and social science, two areas of interest for me.  I do read past the popular articles in the news to the published data and read the protocols and the questions themselves.  Some good, some garbage. 

In any event I have been living atheism and feminism for many more decades than you have been alive and I am not a convert to either.  Before you sling your projection of fundy on me you should at least identify the fundamentalism I allegedly identify with.  What is it? A convert's fundamentalist anti-theist beliefs?  A feminist activist's fundamentalism that all men are pricks?

I am a trained scientist and scholar although not working in either field I am able to observe behavior from a scientific POV generally without bias or belief based conceptual blocks.  It is a fact that I am a feminist man living in a male dominated world, and an atheist in a Christian dominated culture, but I do observe without bias how both of those positions of privilege affect me and the others around me. 

Shouting about making bullshit up does not make the assertion true. One must in academia or in the real world, take the bullshit apart and demonstrate that it is wrong.  So far you have done neither.  

To be fair to Fematheist she is promoting a feminist atheist channel on YouTube (Search Kristi Winters) that is well worth subscribing to if you are into Video.  I skip to the references to see whether the transcript is worth reading. 

Good and Evil and One God.

beliefnet

If they are athiest murders they are clearly INSANE.

If they are christian murders its the religion's fault, - RCCU

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg

  Good people which are the overwhelming majority of humans will behave well that is they will conform to the prevailing ethos of their community.  There will be a few sociopaths sane or insane that will violate the norms of the community, but normally they will be removed quickly by the good people in the community. 

It takes a strong belief in the doctrines of a "god" to change the prevailing ethos of the community to promote or tolerate evil.  The religion may be secular in that the "god" is human but it takes a well buttressed belief system in something or someone promoting that something to allow good people to partition off the evil in their minds.  

Miniver Cheevy

A group of people no matter how committed can never accomplish anything.  History shows that on any scale, large or small it is always a single committed individual that for good or usually for not so good can feel the prevailing needs of a large group of followers and provide a focus for their beliefs. Whether it is a genetic imperative as some argue, or a conditioned belief like the major religions, without a committed leader nothing happens.  The leader may be supernatural, which is the power of religions, or human, but H. Sap. need to believe in something or someone to do anything.

The Brain Preparing for Death

beliefnet
NDEs that is extremely high stress experiences, OBEs, anoxia, awe, wonder and are common human experiences.  Not all humans have all such experiences, but most have experienced many of them.  One might argue logically that how they are interpreted is a clear indication of the fundamental basis of their human experience.  If any God or supernatural entity is the basis of their human experience all will be attributed to that entity.  If not other explanations, including WTFWT, will be considered. If God has never been a reasonable answer to any question it is not likely to be even considered as an answer to WTFWT.  If it remains as an important experience some natural explanation even a speculative one will be found and God will remain a belief for others irrelevant for an atheist who by the way may or may not be a materialist.  

A NDE is commonly described as one's life flashing by as if in a time lapse movie, which is the brains way of either finding a solution to the predicament or preparing a dream like state for death.  Believers attribute this dream like state as heaven or hell, and the anoxia induced light at the end of the tunnel as God.  Believers in reincarnation attribute the dream like state as preparation for the next life.  I know of one atheist who sees the dream like state as indefinite in length as dreams often are, which may last apparently eternally.  He is aware that the appearance of eternal is false, or perhaps has a holographic existence on the fabric of space-time.  But in any event, each person experiences that which will allow the brain to shut down to a calm rest in peace. 

Thinking About Beliefs.

beliefnet

I think at this point the only thing being achieved with this thread is "people from various backgrounds coming together to tell the OP that their methods are unnecessarily offensive."LDS

The OP got your attention, that is at least progress.

Progress towards what?Jewsha

Progress towards thinking about the prevailing misogyny in religion that spills over into the society dominated by those misogynic religions.

Even the attacks, diversions, and lies, make people "see the smoke" most people will simply rubberneck, a few will figure out there is a fire, one or two will try to do something to put out the fire, and as many if not more will scream "Let it burn!"

But just seeing the smoke makes people think about their belief about the cause of the fire.  And that thinking is inside the conceptual blocks that protect the belief.  Thinking inside the blocks is a disaster for beliefs.

Art Music and Beliefs

beliefnet

Opinions on art and music are subjective. You tell me that your taste is better and criticize mine and I will treat you like something that just slithered out from under a rock.

Beliefs are not subjective. They are either true or false. If you criticise one of my beliefs, and do it respectfully, we can have an interesting debate. And, if you were persuasive, you might even change my mind. However, if your idea of debate is to ridicule my beliefs, then I'll treat you like something that just slithered out from under a rock. freespirit

Obviously you don't follow art or music criticism.  There are real standards of what constitutes art and music that are educated opinions that are not subjective at all.  Like beliefs these educated opinions can and do change as new forms get past the shock stage.  But art and music still matter, and only the new forms that comply with the human goals of art and music to educate, stimulate, and move people.   

Opinions about beliefs change more slowly as they are indoctrinated earlier and more intensively than opinions on art and music but change they do.  Sometimes it takes generations to do so as beliefs occupy a more important area of the mind than esthetics.  Social compliance with beliefs is frequently a matter of survival.  Esthetics is more like manners; a group identifier rather than a coercive believe or die.

beliefnet
 
I communicate very clearly and insure that what I write means exactly what I want it to mean.  The fact that what I write cannot get through your conceptual blocks says more about your belief system than my writing. 

Human Worth

beliefnet

If you have one, what is your standard for measuring human worth?
OFS

How well a person embraces the UU First Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Not every white male; not every Christian (almost an oxymoron, as Christian theology teaches all are sinners;) not every Buddhist; not every civilized person;  but every person.  

Note that this principle does not embrace bad behavior just that the bad behavior is not a result of being a bad person.  That rogue cop, or despot, or exploitive capitalist is not a bad person, hesh has just embraced a bad belief system that leads them to ignore the first principle.  If somehow one could change the belief system the inherent worth would emerge and the conscience (since this is OFS' thread) would repair the bad behavior. 

Changing belief systems is an extremely difficult task.  The brain builds blocks to information contrary to strongly held beliefs, so that contrary data is not even processed by the brain.  Not impossible, Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates come to mind as examples from the capitalist belief system.  Possibly, it is early yet, but some have even attacked their own belief systems to bring them more in line with the First Principle, Pope Francis and Bishop Spong come to mind

In order to embrace the first principle it is necessary to be aware of and resist the brain's inherent tendency to create beliefs about other people.  That is to generalize from behavior to the person.  Currently, all Muslims are terrorists is a common belief that leads to terms like Islamist which reinforces the belief system to make it for practical purposes unassailable.

Even atheists can fall victim to beliefs based on belief systems: All Christians are bigots.  Theists aren't reasonable. 

Belief Genetics

I doubt that the belief gene has been identified. (And probably won't be, people have been burned at the stake for less.)  But according to Shermer it exists in a large segment of the population.  Not always religious, but politics and religion are the most common expressions.  Probably tribe membership or authority related from an evolutionary viewpoint. 
But look around you.  Believers beget believers.  It would be hard to separate out nature vs nurture, but believers occasionally beget people who can actually read the Bible and the newspapers, or actually think about what they watch on the boob tube (for them.) One might think of them as deficient in the belief gene as the occasional green-eyed redhead is deficient in the melanin gene. 

But non-believers also beget non-believers.  I come from a family that goes back to the earliest colonists for which "He would have been mayor except he pissed off the preacher." was their characterization of most of the famous members.  "He" was usually run out of town as the original settler was run out of England. An ancestor was a General in Washington's army, but was run out of Virginia (and America) to Ohio.  

They also perhaps necessarily marry non-believers weeding out the belief gene.  My great grandmother married into the family but was an atheist, free thinker and feminist.  (late 19th Cen.)

Ritual, Belief, and Understanding

beliefnet
I use ritual as a shorthand for important belief sets for any religion.  If you learn them early enough and repeat them offen enough they become part of your identity as a member of the "tribe" (the general sense of the term.) The Pledge of Allegiance is an identity ritual of the Tribe of Ammerruhcuns.

Understanding is quite different from belief.  I understand the Credo as fundamental to Catholicism, and can respect and interpret it musically in my case to reinforce it in the minds of believers even though I do not believe any of it myself.  The Church paid big money to composers to create memorable Masses to indoctrinate believers in an enjoyable format.  Part of the compensation was for setting the Mass to reinforce the dogma.

Skeptical Conceptual Blocks

beliefnet

christine3:It seems most atheists here get a reaction when they read the words paranormal, supernormal, superconscious, supernatural.

Skeptical atheists are believers just like most people.  Their conceptual blocks are as impermeable as a fundamentalist Christian or a Republican.  The only real difference is their BS do not involve God. They are as capable of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la, la, la I can't hear you when confronted with evidence of things like esp and other paranormal abilities as any Christian. 

May 20, 2015 -- 7:32PM, Blü wrote:

JCarlin

See #44

Okay, I've re-read #44.
No evidence of esp confronted me.
What did I miss?

May 21, 2015 -- 2:46AM, Trollish wrote:

Same here. Read #44 and encountered no evidence for paranormal phenomenon.

#44 says that you have never and never will encounter evidence for paranormal phenomena.  Your brain is incapable of processing evidence you may have encountered in the past or will encounter in the future.  It will always concoct an apologetic that certain things cannot happen in reality and if they appear to have happened that must be the result of something else.  Delusion, falsehood, or misinterpretation of the data. 

Tell Me, Tell Me.

beliefnet

Theist wrote:

Oh atheists, teach me there is no God and I will be free.

You will have to free yourself. 

I could teach you that a Creator of everything that exists has a probability of near zero.  But the miniscule probability will still permit 100% belief. 

I could teach you that everything you know about God is the product of human imaginings.  But I could not teach you that those imaginings were not inspired by God.

I could teach you that everything taught by that little vuvuzela in a fancy dress in an over decorated balcony is a self-serving lie. But I could not teach you those lies are not from God. 

I could teach you that your whole Belief System is useless for living the life you are sure of: the one that started when you were born and will end someday. But I cannot teach you anything at all about what happens after that end.  

I could teach you that the life you are sure of is the only one worth worrying about, and that living it according to the highest standards of social benefit is the only thing that matters no matter what happens when you die.  But I cannot teach you what those highest standards are. 

You will have to teach yourself to be free. 

Shermer on BS

Wow. You don't even read the posts of others who clearly illustrate you are wrong, do you. You just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the same falsehoods over and over again. It is hilarious. They are not falsehoods they are Beliefs.  According to Shermer in The Believing Brain even if they listen carefully information contrary to the Belief System is not even processed by the brain.  There is a filtering system in the brain popularly called conceptual blocks but scientifically observable that automatically routes contrary information to the trash file of the brain.  It is not hilarious; it is an unfortunate function of a believer's brain.  That is why it has been a practice on this board for many years to refer to such incorrect beliefs as BS a Belief System which generally contains varying amounts of the bucolic BS.  Hat tip to AciraZade for this concept.  Note the color of the page.

Natural and Supernatural

beliefnet

Skeptic wrote:

I think that the difference between nature and supernature is similar to the difference between

Normal and Paranormal

Physics and Metaphysics

Medicine and Alternative Medicine

Astronomy and Astrology

History and Mythology

Philosophy and Religion

Science and Pseudo-Science

Knowing and Believing

In a sense I agree with you, except the Knowing and Believing part which I will get to later.  But it seems that your implication is the first in the pair is true and the second false.  The first generally has a consensus, but time after time parts of all have been shown to be incorrect.  Occasionally by investigation of aspects of the second in the pair. 

A few are laughable.  History and mythology are both tales told by people that weren't there purporting to be knowledgeable.  Personally I find more truth in mythology and fiction than history which is always reported by those at the top of the pile to support their position there. 

The only difference between philosophy and religion is that religion has been around a lot longer and therefore is more robust. 

The difference between knowing and believing is the amount of self-delusion involved.  If one knows something the self-delusion is complete.  A believer at least understands that some of the BS requires faith and therefore further adjustments to the belief may be considered.

There Ain't no Fundy Like a Science Fundy.

beliefnet

Theist wrote:

If you believe so....

Skeptic wrote:

Have you ever changed your beliefs based on new empirical evidence? If not, then it's "you believing so".

Blü wrote:

I agree with skeptic.

The only way to find out if something's true in reality is to look at reality - the world external to the self, about which our senses can inform us. And to reason honestly from our perceptions.

  
There ain't no fundy like a science fundy.

Have you ever changed your beliefs based on an opinion piece? If not, why not? 

Is what you learn from a story that you did not observe from a reliable source true in reality?  Does it matter if the story was fictional, or fiction based on reality?  If no, why?

Beliefs, Bias, and Atheism

beliefnet

Please clarify. Holding a bias in favor of their own positions is a common human trait. Are you claiming that the atheists in this group are extraordinary in their capacity to be fair and objective?

It is commonly recognized that biases are associated with belief.  See Shermer among many others. Scientists are trained to recognize and compensate for biases, especially belief based biases,  and do so relatively well due to the threat of peer review either formal or informal.

Generally atheists reject beliefs in anything, preferring a search for valid knowledge without belief biases.  In addition atheists generally do not generally have positions to support.  As an example I have found that god beliefs are not useful and frequently dysfunctional.  However, if someone would show me a useful god belief, I might consider using it, although it is unlikely that I would adopt it.  I find the panentheistic belief a useful and functional worldview to study and learn from.  However, I need no deity to focus my study. I do very well with the wonder and awesomeness of the world I live on and the Universe which contains it. One might say I take my spirituality unadulterated by imaginary intermediaries.  

The Evolution of Belief

beliefnet

Evolutionary models explain how humans evolved social brains that were optimal for conformity to group norms, and that means they will adopt whatever ideas, rituals, art, attitudes, etc. that identifies tribal association.  That's why someone from Denver is more likely to wear a Broncos jersey rather than people living in othe cities with their own football team.  Or why people in the USA are more likely to be some form of Christian and people in the Middle East more likely to be Muslim.  People affiliate and then defend affiliation for various reasons, but most certainly involves a degree of denial. F1fan

How do you determine which group norms are untrue?  If one gains social status (in Denver) from arguing that John Elway, or whomever is the greatest Quarterback in the religion of the NFL is this denial that there may be other quarterbacks that may be in the running? Is it a false belief? Is it a disfunctional belief in Denver?  Do you think a Bart Starr fan store selling nothing but Packer and Starr paraphernalia would be successful in Denver?

Is your belief that there is no guiding force behind evolution necessarily true?  Does a plurality of Gods indicate that there must be none or "One ring to rule them all" including the god of unguided evolution?

Perhaps the human brain evolved to conform to group norms and accept those group norms as true, since arguing the falsity of group norms carries social penalties up to and including death by torture.  Including arguing against secular beliefs. 

Atheists still are subject to social sanctions for arguing against the prevailing religious beliefs of a country or state.  Does this mean atheism is false?  Does it mean atheism is true?

Belief as Life

Beliefnet

I don't think that problem is a matter of 'religion' at all!   There are some individuals, yes, who DO use religion as a substitute for making their own choices based on their own thought.

But then there are people who will NEVER go against their political party's most idiotic 'talking points'.  And people who insist on defining absolutely EVERY situation according to their political rubric. -  LeahOne

Some believers, and believers come in many varieties, religious, political, ethnic, even local sport team fanatics, have no ability to evaluate their beliefs.  This is attributed by scientists studying the phenomenon to an imbalance in risk of countering belief and accepting it unquestioning.  As a result information contrary to the belief system is not even registered in the brain of the believer.  See The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer for an accessable discussion of this science.  It is well documented for those wishing to check his conclusions.  

Simply, the cost of losing ones major social support group due to shunning as a heretic is so high, relative to the value of intellectual integrity, that the brain rejects without recognition any challenge to the beliefs of the social support group.

Or one might ask 'Does a true atheist put so much effort into attacking religion, as opposed to simply explaining - and defending - atheism?' -   LeahOne

The question for atheists is not as unrelated as it might seem.  There is no belief system or social support group associated with "True atheism" that conditions the brain to trigger either confirmation bias or self-justification bias.  While there are some atheist groups that resemble religions, typically the group conformity imperative is very weak.  Atheists even argue about and with their "Four Horsemen" anti-theists. 

Even on a board like this which attracts atheists who like to discuss religion, "attacks" are not on religion in general, but on specific religious or politico-religious beliefs that strongly affect atheists. There are a few exceptions to add a bit of spice to the board, but you will notice that most of the atheists here attack specific beliefs brought up by theists rather than the religion of the theist promoting those beliefs.  Even for those way out there on the belief irrationality scale are challenged on specific beliefs rather than their religion itself. I find it amusing that a specific religion is challenged here more by the theists participating than the atheists. 

One of the problems for atheists in challenging specific strongly held tenets of belief systems is that the challenge is interpreted by the believing brain as a general challenge to the belief system rather than a challenge to a small and perhaps unimportant part of the belief system.  And the believing brain overreacts to protect the belief system as a whole rather than just the specific challenge.  This is a necessary reaction of the believing brain, as any crack in the belief monolith can have disastrous consequences.  

We have on occasion on beliefnet seen the disastrous effects of an "insignificant crack" in a belief system, and may be seeing it in a creationist who has admitted just recently that God's real world creation may be another source of information to supplement the biblical account.  It will bear watching.  She is quite old, but may still have time to let her intrinsic reason and intelligence take over to reject Creationism for a more reasonable version of Christianity.  She seems to be relatively isolated, so the social support group may not be significant.  

Major cracks in the belief system especially life style choices incompatible with the belief system are obvious and traumatic breaks with family and friends in a tight belief circle, but as these frequently take place in a diverse school setting with other social support groups to replace the church family they are normally successful.   

Social Reality

beliefnet

I think of morality as a socially generated reality.  It is not coexistent with physical or science reality as there is no way to measure it directly. It becomes real over time with a steep learning curve in childhood, and eventually becomes internalized as conscience. 

Like all realities it can change as new information is internalized, but by adulthood new information is strongly blocked by the belief system in the brain.   There are several other socially generated realities, religion and politics are the most prominent, and status of other humans seems to be another social reality, which is in my view independent of morality.  Morality deals only with "My people" whatever that means to the particular individual.

All socially generated realities are real only for the individual although within a small tight social group there may be many commonalities. 

Understanding social reality may be a key to dealing with others who may have a completely different reality.  Fundies as an example inhabit a reality that may even exclude physical science as real.  Pretending that they are deluded only complicates the issue of dealing with them rationally.  Presenting facts that conflict with social realities as fact is ineffective in dealing with the social reality of the fact denier.      

TRUTH™ Means that Others are Wrong.

Beliefnet
The theist concern for the TRUTH^TM is a critical difference that causes many problems.  If you have the TRUTH^TM then by definition anything that does not comply with that TRUTH^TM is necessarily inferior and/or wrong.  You are still under the delusion that an atheist or even a rational theist that thinks differently from you has a wrong belief, and that therefore considers their belief to be the TRUTH^TM and all other beliefs inferior and/or wrong.
 
For most atheists and some rational theists this is simply not the case.  A rational approach to living merely says this paradigm works for me, and I will therefore follow this path.  Others are not necessarily wrong or inferior, they are just on a different path to a common goal, that is getting along with all people and things in a responsible way. 
 
As long as belief in God is subservient to getting along with others in a responsible way, I have no issue with that belief.  But if that belief is that God takes precedence over others and that those others are wrong and/or inferior, then we have a major problem.  It is those and only those theists that don't give the benefit of the doubt that are a problem for their fellows, theist or not.  Unfortunately, those theists are all too common and pose a real threat to atheists, and rational theists, and non-theistic believers in other truths.