October 30th, 2007
Why one particular atheist is angry.
I agree with pretty much everything she had to say.
So I'll just add, "amen."
Current Location: work
Yes, but it's as an atheist. Why? Why not as a human?
Do you have to put the vast majority of these injustices into that context to consider them unjust? No. Thus, it's her choice to make it about her atheism, and her choice to deal with what will happen when people who are not atheist, such as myself, read the article and come away feeling like they're being blamed, even if that wasn't the intention of the article.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. It's just stirring the shit, from my point of view, and I'm astounded that so many people on my friends-list think it's the shizzle. If anyone posted a similar rant against atheists, I'd have exactly the same viewpoint on that.
|Date:||October 30th, 2007 06:13 pm (UTC)|| |
It's in a religious context, so I'm not sure discussing this as a "human" would make much sense? Let me use her first three examples to illustrate:
1) 45% of Americans would vote for an atheist president
2) atheist conventions need extra security v. fundamentalists
3) atheist soldiers sidelined/threatened
They specifically deal with the issue of godlessness, so how could you discuss these without putting them in the atheistic framework? Are you saying that she should have spoken as a human-for-atheists (lack of a better term) :)? A lot of this is grievances she has specifically AS an atheist, not just a human. But I still don't understand how that negates someone of faith from sharing her viewpoint on specific circumstances, or extrapolating further to fit their experience? She says she's speaking against particulars, not religion as a general idea. So why feel lumped out?
|Date:||October 30th, 2007 07:07 pm (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|Yes, but it's as an atheist. Why?
This was answered in the article: One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?"
It seems that both you and inlaterdays
have rushed to bristle at the possibility that the article is saying something that it clearly is not. The author is an atheist, and as an atheist is writing in response and in reaction to a single question. In answering that question, in no way does she suggest that those who hold to a religious faith can't be angry. Similarly, in no way does she implicate you or your faith, unless you believe (for instance) that atheists should not be a citizens, that modern medicine is no substitute for prayer, or that unexamined and unquestioned belief is a Good ThingTM
. At no point in the article did she suggest that ALL believers do or think X. Instead, she cites specific examples of how she gets angry when
believers exhibit specific behaviors, specific biases, or specific beliefs.
Why can't she admit that she's angry as an individual? Her stance of "my group hates your group and we have a right to here's why" is just hate-mongering.
OOH GODWIN'S LAW LOOMS ON THE HORIZON EVERYBODY DUCK
Because I don't think she's worth my time? I was responding to an LJ friend's reaction to her post; the OP doesn't interest me. The LJ friend has asked for this thread to stop, so that's it for me. :)
I never did anything of the sort, if you're speaking of me.
Not that I'd pour gasoline on a flamewar, but I wouldn't pour water either. ^_^
ah, guess I did confirm that it should cease.
Insomnia, never a good reason for posting to the intarwebs. *sigh* I just walked into a wall, so I'm doing no better today. >_
I'm sleep-deprived too and I've been without a car for over a week, so I really should not have been argumenting on the intarwubs at all yesterday. Sorry to everyone I pissed off.