Sorry Ana. I'll stop putting out troll food, now.

TW: sexual abuse @tde Actually, the analogy is troubling because in many, many places on this blog, people have requested not to use that analogy. It's triggering and alienating to a number of survivors on these message boards. It's more generally alienating to women on this message board. You are violating stated boundaries, as a whole host of others have, regardless of frequent requests not to do so. People here are tired of it. Honestly, it kind of makes you look like an ***hole and distracts from the point you are trying to make. So, unless you wish to continue looking like an ***hole, stop it.

What Certain Sylvia and Froborr said.

TW: childhood abuse, rape I second using a different metaphor than rape. It's a really poor comparison and using rape as an analogy has been thoroughly worn out at this point. Look, I wouldn't change the fact that I'm trans. It has shaped who I am. Would I change the fact that my childhood peers physically and emotionally abused me because I was gender variant? Would I change my father's shitty, neglectful, abusive attitudes toward me because I couldn't follow the "proper" strictures of masculinity? You bet. Challenging abuse is not the same as removing an intrinsic characteristic of someone's persona. Learn to make the distinction and move on.

And, just to drive home my point even further: socially dominant groups tend to ignore the needs and perspectives of less dominant groups. That leads to deepening social stratification, deepening levels of oppression, and general harm toward the less dominant groups. This tends to be exacerbated when the group in the dominant position thinks that it is superior to the less dominant groups. This is why anti-theist make me very, very uncomfortable.

Ross, you have missed the point of what I'm saying. Technology can be designed to suit the needs of the designer. Those with social power make the decisions as to whose needs are met. Those decisions shape society and shape what people assume is "normal". Since men have had social dominance in many societies for a very, very long time, their bodies and their bodies needs are considered "normal." Technology and the occupations that employ that technology are effected accordingly. Substitute any group of people who take a position of social dominance and their needs and ways of being will be positioned as "normal." Anti-theists embrace the goal of moving themselves into a socially dominant position. Will they behave differently than any other socially dominant group in human history? Especially when they are starting out with the sense of being superior to other groups? You can probably guess where I'm placing my bets.

Izzy said: I dunno. With respect, and while I'm glad you exist, I think, if the decision was up to me, having a kid who was content with his or her body would outweigh the difference-of-perspective that struggle provides. Well, I expect that if you polled cis people, the majority would favor a vaccine that would "cure" transness. That's why I'm glad that trans identities are "more complicated than that" and are unlikely to be narrowed down to some singular "curable" physical factor. I'm well aware of what the majority would choose. I'm well aware of what that implies about me being... well... "defective". For a similar reason, in spite of being agnostic/atheist, I'm glad that the roots of spirituality and religion are unlikely to be easily "cured." Should folks of my ilk wind up with a respectable level of social power, I don't want us to have the ability to eliminate other ways of being. In spite of the messy repercussions, I enjoy the random variations of humanity. I'll take the good with the bad, and whatever qualities we happen to drop into those oftentimes arbitrary categories. The alternative is not a world I wish to live in.

Izzy said: Cissexual is an odd one, because I'm not sure how that would work. If there was a method by which we could detect what sex a child would identify as and make sure the body matched, that seems like a good idea, but. If such a thing were possible, then this would be a world in which I wouldn't exist. It is an understatement to say that what I've learned about the world as a trans woman and what I've experienced in this life as a trans woman can not be reproduced within the confines of a cis person's experience. I would not change my life to that of a cis woman's, even if I could somehow work that miracle. Unless you lived it, you'll have difficulty understanding it. As I continue to ask, who decides what is "normal"? As we use technology and social pressures to funnel humanity down to a singular "ideal" template, what is lost? Who is lost?

What if someone produced a "vaccine" which ensured that a baby is born heterosexual... or cissexual (not transsexual)? Should we give our children the "advantage" of being straight and cis? After all, one of those less favored ways of being results in human pairings which hinder reproduction. The other leads to a place where a person often seeks medical intervention to transition to the sex that feels more natural (surgery, hormones, etc.).

Froth said: In our world, only having two arms isn't a disability, because the world is built for and by and around people who have two arms. This reminds me of the notion that women just aren't suited for certain jobs that require lots of upper body strength. One day, I asked myself, "Wait, who traditionally designed tools which require a lot of upper body strength and who traditionally designed all those heavy, hard to move objects?" My conversation with myself continues: "Uh, well, that was largely done by able-bodied men who had only their own levels of upper body strength in mind." "Oh. So a good bit of technology and miscellaneous objects were designed so that half of humanity would have an advantage in using them?" "Yup." Nevertheless, women are just "naturally not suited" to activities where the technology and implements are designed by men for men's bodies, right? I mean, evolution and biology just left women with a natural disadvantage, right? Wait, what about all those engineers and designers who actually didn't give a crap about women? What about men who have smaller bodies and lower levels of upper body strength? Again, who sets the standards of "normal"?

Just a random thought: I am always stunned at how beautiful sign language is. I think the world would be a poorer place without it. Who am I, a hearing person, to tell a deaf person that my way of being in this world is "better"? I have no doubt that a deaf person's way of experiencing the world has its own richness--one that I might not understand--but a richness nevertheless. It would be so wonderful if we could all bring ourselves up to "full functional normalcy". I can see it now: a world composed of only cis, straight, gender normative, able-bodied, middle class, hyper-rational people of bland, indeterminate complexion who attend the atheist philosophical discussions every Wednesday evening. Doesn't that sound like fun? Oh wait, that's too bland and lock-step for you? OK, then who gets to decide which characteristics the new generation of Ideal Humans have?

Ana, in my "dreamed of" world, I think I'd have a society in which people were not coerced (by law, family pressures, or social conformity) into one particular faith or philosophy. People (both children and adults) could freely explore the philosophies and faiths that speak to them. If such a world were possible, I suspect that a lot of the more coercive, oppressive variants of faith/philosophy would loose members and the other belief systems would gain new followers. Is this a world in which atheism reigns as the only acceptable way of being? No. I think it's impossible to achieve a world in which people are free to choose the beliefs that personally speak to them and a world in which only one belief system exists. That would take force and coercion... and even then, you'd still have non-conformists. Spirituality and religion speaks to many people in a way that atheism and materialism does not. Atheism and materialism speaks to many people in a way that spirituality and religion does not. As long as you have a diverse group of people on the planet with varied life experiences, emotional compositions, tastes, and motivations, you will have faith, spirituality, materialism, and atheism existing side by side. The number of people might shift, even out, or sway in one direction or another, but there will always be variety. Why? Different things appeal to different people. We are not all pushed out of the same template. However, as with conformists of any stripe, there will always be someone who thinks everyone in the world should be just like them. I don't care if you are different from me. Heck, if I actually pay attention, I might even learn something from you. As long as neither you nor I use our differences as an excuse to shit on each other, I suspect things will be just fine. It's the people who push their own variations of conformity that I don't trust.

Deird, that was hilarious.

L. David Wheeler said: Atheists have by and large been treated shamefully when they've been in the minority. I hope that when and if the positions are reversed, you don't repeat the same mistakes. First of all, I don't want to live in the world you describe... even though I'm a weird sort of agnostic/atheist. It sounds figgin' terrible. Second, yes, I fear that oppression of spiritual/religious people in the world you describe is quite likely. I don't think the world's problems center upon religion. I think the problem is that we have great difficulty not falling prey to seeing people through the filters of prejudice and tribalism. Religion reflects and incorporates those shortcomings, but is not the source.

Nick Kiddle said: I have spoken of god as being similar to the notional quantities that often pop up in physics because they make the equations easier to express. They don't "exist" in the same way that, say, a spoon exists, but they are no less useful for that. I've described religious imagery/symbolism as comparable to an operating system. Religion provides a person with an easily accessible, culturally familiar "cognitive GUI" to access and experience the emotions and sense of connection that I described above. Different people prefer different "operating systems." Christianity and Islam seem to be the Windows and Mac of the religious world. I think Paganism is probably Linux. They all do pretty much the same thing, but the aesthetics and commands are quite different. I prefer cutting out the high level symbolism and using straight "machine code". That is, I prefer experiencing those emotions and sense of connection with as little cultural symbolism as possible. But, that's just me. YMMV

TRiG, imagine the deep sense of connection that you might feel with a lover and/or your closest friend. Imagine that sensation shifting it's target to something else (the mountain, the trees, the people in the room with you, etc.) and becoming more diffuse. Combine that with deep wonder and a sense of being overwhelmed or swallowed up by those feelings. That's the best way I can describe it in words.

I believe that the experience of the Divine exists, too. When I spend time in nature and I feel a sense of ineffable connection with the land and the life around me, I strongly suspect that religious people experience very similar emotions. The difference is they attribute those emotions and that sense of connection to "God", "Goddess", "Vishnu", "Allah", or whomever. I experience this as a connection with living things and the planet that sustains me. They experience it as a connection with an otherworldly presence. So? We're social creatures who thrive on establishing a sense of emotional connection with the people, places and things that surround us. In that context, is it so surprising that people have a sense of emotional connection with something they can't quite pin down? So, in spite of not believing in deities, I think I actually "get it." As long as folks don't use their sense of connection with the ineffable to hurt or control others, I don't mind. I also think it's nigh impossible to drive that tendency to form a connection out of people. Regardless of how we express it, it's a part of our humanness. But then again, I'm probably just another dangerous, irrational, cognitively defective person.

TW: hate speech, violence I know that I'm new around here, but I'd like to suggest that J-atheist be banned. Threatening to destroy people's places of worship or alluding to such behavior is a form of hate speech. Besides that: J-atheist, I'm a non-believer, but I want no part of your violent revolution. Your words embody the destructive ill-will that I fear might arise from anti-theism. Go away.

Ruby, your icon has enough pink-purple in it that fuchsia/magenta would match nicely. On the other hand, the suggestion of intense, glowy green for my side makes my head hurt. I'd get jealous and pine away for the other color. Magnolia is nice, though.

Thanks for your understanding, Kit. Speaking of emotional safety, I can't begin to imagine what being a moderator during the past two weeks has been like. Oh my. :-[

By the way, I think the philosophical color scheme is awesome. Although, sadly, I keep on getting colors confused. I associate pink with LGBT/QUILTBAG and so, I associate the notion of pluralism and diversity with pink-like colors. Pluralism and diversity are NOT the qualities I associate with anti-theism (aka "confrontationalists").

Kit, one of the light bulbs that lit up in my little brain concerns terminology. I think that the terms accommodationalist vs. confrontationalist are misleading and have served to obscure the actual issue at hand. Again, that which marks a difference in philosophy has been incorrectly attributed to a difference in temperament. This has been maddening for me, because I feel like people of my philosophical standpoint (agnostic/atheist pluralism) have been shoehorned into a label that reduces a basic conflict of values into an individualized quirk of personality. This isn't about gentle vs. aggressive temperaments. The problem centers upon tolerance vs. intolerance. I'd much rather use the terms pluralist vs. anti-theist. They make a lot more sense to me than accommodationalist vs confrontationalist. What's becoming clear is that Froborr's article, as well as a personal opinion, was also (or at least, could be read as) a declaration of allegiance to one side of an increasing divide. With that knowledge in mind, I at least plan to edit more carefully for awareness of that divide in future. I think you are quite right. I'm guessing that the conflict this blog has experienced in the last few weeks is actually part of a larger process of self-filtering taking place. Those with more exclusivist perspectives are feeling extremely alienated from those with more pluralistic perspectives, and vice versa. Personally, I'm doubtful that a safe(r) space can be created that can accommodate both pluralistic viewpoints and anti-theist viewpoints. Is it possible to have a safe(r) space that can accommodate both ecumenical Christians and fundamentalist Christians? Or more broadly, can a space be created that can have both interfaith people and fundamentalist religious people? Can pluralists and exclusivists work together when their goals strongly conflict? I don't think this conflict is limited to atheism. I'm guessing that it cuts across many faiths and bodies of philosophy. As others have implied, just as the radical Christian right doesn't hang out at The Slactiverse, you probably won't see the radical side of atheism hanging out here either. Actually, timberwraith - would you be willing to work those points up into an article? I think they deserve a bigger platform than buried in the middle of a thread. If you were willing, it might be a while before we published it because we all think we need some time for the smoke to clear before we bring up the a-word again, but I for one would very much like to see that analysis expanded upon and put in the spotlight. I might be willing to give it a go. And as far as I'm concerned there's no need to rush. I'd rather let the dust settle too. To be totally honest, the thought of facing a response similar to the kind this blog has recently received leaves me with a fair degree of apprehension. I've spent a fair amount of time in new atheist spaces and I've faced off similar responses. It tends to foul my emotions for a very, very long time. So, lemme think about it, ok? I'm interested, but wary.

I've found Froborr's original article, the ensuing discussion/conflict, and Greta Christina's article on the goals of the atheist movement to be very helpful in figuring where the fracture points are in current day atheism. For a while now, there has been talk about atheists breaking down into two camps: accommodationalists/diplomats vs. confrontationalists/firebrands. The difference has been portrayed as a difference in temperament and the common refrain has been that both temperaments are needed and that both can coexist within the atheist movement. It has become increasingly obvious to me that the actual fracture lines among atheists run between pluralists and anti-theists. On one side, you have a group of people who are basically "live and let live" and are striving for a world that accepts diverse opinions regarding matters of philosophy, religion and spirituality. On the other side, you have a group of people who are striving for a world that accepts only one approach to philosophy, religion, and spirituality. One side strives for coexistence and the other side strives for the end of all religion. To be blunt, these two approaches are not compatible. This is not a difference of temperament. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy and values. I suspect that a good portion of the war of invective that we've seen at The Slactiverse reflects this incompatibility. Also, in my two years of exploring the world of atheist blogging, I have found that the most popular atheist websites are those which lean toward anti-theism. Most of the energy and cultural foment seems to be occurring among anti-theists. As a non-believer who values pluralism, I'm not very happy about this. Ironically, I've found myself drawn to progressive Christian websites and interfaith websites because the atheist blogosphere tends to reject pluralism in favor of anti-theism. One of the reasons The Slactiverse has been inundated with so many angry, inflamed responses to Froborr's article is because the largest, most active atheist social spaces lean heavily in the direction of anti-theism. Pluralist atheists, I suspect, are more likely to just to blend in with other progressive causes and websites. We're far more scattered and consequently, our voices are more diffuse.

Religion changes as the culture changes, as do all of a society's institutions. As a culture grows more accepting of QUILTBAG people, so shall its religious institutions. This isn't rocket science. So, the fact that GC was barely able to contain her "churlishness" leaves me a bit dumbfounded. It's all great and wonderful that atheists are generally welcoming of queer folk, but we atheists only represent 10% or less of the US populace. What about the 76% who IDs as Christian? Is it going to dry up and blow away overnight because some boisterous people don't believe in god? Or because an ill tempered atheist lady just dropped short of snubbing the religious contingent at the Pride Parade? No, the folks in the religious contingent of the parade are the people who are shifting Christianity (and other faiths) toward a more understanding place by actually participating in those institutions, making their voices heard, and challenging homophobic, transphobic, sexist attitudes. This is why anti-theism not only irritates me, but it simply doesn't make sense to me. I welcome any positive changes that people bring to their religions which challenge the authoritarian, prejudicial trappings of traditional faith. Just wishing everyone will convert to atheism and tossing out ill-mannered rhetoric isn't going to cut it.