Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy

[Squelch]

Yes, it's the real world but anonymous bluster on the internet does not warrant your statement:[/quote]

If someone who had theratened you repeatedly and boasted about using violence on people like you, who posted on a forum with individuals who advocated committing genocide against people like you said that they knew where you, your wife and baby daughter lived and that they were watching you, would you just dismiss it as "anonymous bluster"?

I didn't and neither did the forum's owners.

You could pick just about any group, religion, hobby, etc. and find commentary on the web that is as unpleasant as you care to find.

Oh, so because there are nutjobs in every population, it's okay to be a nutjob and we should just tolerate them? I really don't think so.

[Dexter]

Oh, so because there are nutjobs in every population, it's okay to be a nutjob and we should just tolerate them? I really don't think so.

That's not what I said. Obviously.

I'm pretty sure you're safe here, but given that you've apparently received serious threats on more than one forum, maybe you should stay off the interwebs.

[geo]

I'm not trying to start anything, but this just sounds really bizarre. You were asked to "investigate" allegations of religious bigotry in an atheist organization and when you made your "findings" known, they went completely crazy. I have to wonder, how exactly did you make your findings known?

I really wonder why your friend wanted you to investigate an atheist forum in the first place. What was his motivation, and what was yours for accepting the mission?

Ah, I should have explained: my friend was (is) a freelance journalist. My findings, along with my friends' own research formed the core of an article which was published quite widely. When the period allotted was up, I told them what was going on and posted my preliminary findings, which I thought was only fair. They were extremely angry; the general feeling seemed to be that I had in some way deceived them by not giving them the opportunity to moderate their behaviour.

It would be really interesting to see the article in question.

I checked out the Brights web site. The first thing you see is this:

What is a Bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

So it sounds pretty clear that this a forum for atheists. I myself have no interest in atheist forums, but I can appreciate that there are those who do want to be among like-minded people. All forums are in-groups to some extent. BT, for example, is set up for people who like to read.

Imagine if you belonged to this atheist forum how it would feel to have one of the members announce one day that he has been here for x number of weeks or months, basically under false pretenses, to eavesdrop on your conversations and possibly even initiate conversations about religion, in order to investigate "allegations of religious bigotry" and that he was going to publish said findings in an article.

All I can say is if this happened on BT, I would be incredibly pissed off.

It's hard to believe that any reputable magazine would have anything to do with such a piece. Where was it published?

[lady of shallot]

I just checked out the Brights website and I am inclined to join them, although their forums do not seem as well attended as those here on Book Talk. What I like about them is they have a community, they are world wide and they have actual membership meetings dotted around the country.

They do say that each individual Bright speaks for her or himself.

Anyway there was this link posted there. I had never seen this before. Incredible! Esp when the blond says this is a nation of freedom of religion not freedom FROM religion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5 ... re=related

[Squelch]

It would be really interesting to see the article in question.

I'm not sure where you'd get a copy. I gather it was published in a national newspaper's Sunday edition but I'm not sure where else; I only ever saw a final draft copy for approval. We discussed the possibility of a follow-up article after a couple of years but nothing ever came of it.

So it sounds pretty clear that this a forum for atheists. I myself have no interest in atheist forums, but I can appreciate that there are those who do want to be among like-minded people. All forums are in-groups to some extent. BT, for example, is set up for people who like to read.

Yes, of course we knew that it was an forum for atheists. That was the point; to explore whether as an organisation they were anti-religion. In practice I found them poorly organised and confused; there were several formulations of the organisation's aims, some of which were openly anti-religion and some of which were not. In practice the content of the forums as posted by the membership was overwhelmingly and strongly anti-religion, and there was no move to moderate or control that tendency that I could see.

Imagine that you belonged to this atheist forum and how it would feel to have one of the members announce one day that he has been here for x number of weeks or months, basically under false pretenses to eavesdrop on your conversations, and possibly even initiate conversations about religion, in order to investigate "allegations of religious bigotry" and that he was going to publish said findings in an article.

Of course I didn't initiate any discussion about religion and mainly listened and observed. If someone told me they were going to publish what I said here, I'd have no problem with that: I stand by what I say here and in the real world 100%. As long as they reported what I said truthfully and and in context, what reason would I have to complain?

All I can say is if this happened on BT, I would be incredibly pissed off.

Can I ask why? This is not a private forum; anyone can read it. Isn't it incumbent on us to take responsibility for what we say and do rather than the repsonsibility of others not to read and report it?

It's hard to believe that any reputable magazine would have anything to do with such a piece. Where was it published?

There are newspapers who publish pieces about Lindsey Lohan being caught with drugs in her car. Call me when they catch her with a book in her car, that'll be news.

I see from a quick browse of the brights' forums today that they've made significant changes to their forums and disclaim responsibility for the views in some of the more heated areas. In all I'd say that it's a more civilised place and I see that they've removed the references in their statement of aims to limiting or eliminating the role of religion in society. That's good to see; they seem a lot more grown up now and I wish them all the best.

[lady of shallot]

http://www.the-brights.net/

this is a link to the brights home page. They identify themselves as promoting a naturalistic point of view, not one based on supernaturalism. Don't know how they could be much clearer.

[geo]

Yes, of course we knew that it was an forum for atheists. That was the point; to explore whether as an organisation they were anti-religion. In practice I found them poorly organised and confused; there were several formulations of the organisation's aims, some of which were openly anti-religion and some of which were not. In practice the content of the forums as posted by the membership was overwhelmingly and strongly anti-religion, and there was no move to moderate or control that tendency that I could see.

Yeah, an atheist group is going to be anti-religious. I mean, duh, right?

You also sound surprised that the group was disorganized. Atheists by definition are not organized at all. It sounds like the Brights are trying to make a movement based on naturalistic philosophy and promoting a worldview free from religion. But, again, get a bunch of atheists together, you're going to see some anti-religion sentiment.

All I can say is if this happened on BT, I would be incredibly pissed off.

Can I ask why? This is not a private forum; anyone can read it. Isn't it incumbent on us to take responsibility for what we say and do rather than the repsonsibility of others not to read and report it?

These are essentially conversations between members. BT is a community and, speaking for myself, I feel a sense of pride for this group and the level of discourse that you find here. To have someone basically infiltrate BT in an effort to write an exposé feels dishonest to me. Another thing, BT could be made to look bad based on the comments of a small minority. I do wonder how much of an agenda the writer of this article had. Was he trying to make the Brights group look bad? But without seeing the article, I really can't comment further. It would be interesting to get other peoples' perspectives.

[Squelch]

Yeah, an atheist group is going to be anti-religious. I mean, duh, right?

Well, not really.

Atheist means "without god", not "against god".

The Brights themselves say specifically that the movement is not anti-religion (in fact they say that while some individual brights may be, there are actually brights who practice religion themselves). What we found was in stark contrast to that claim.

You also sound surprised that the group was disorganized. Atheists by definition are not organized at all..

But, again, get a bunch of atheists together, you're going to see some anti-religion sentiment. [/quote]

That's been my experience too and I think that's pretty sad.

I do wonder how much of an agenda the writer of this article had. Was he trying to make the Brights group look bad?

The Brights did that all by themselves, believe me. Nothing we reported was untrue or out of context and we ommitted entirely the behaviour which followed, deciding that it would be better to assume that was down to the actions of a few cowards and weaklings than of the movement as a whole.

I have high hopes for atheism and for atheists. I think the current popular form of atheism with its ties to materialism and science has a huge amount to offer society as a whole and even has a lot to offer the world religions - don't you think an objective, unbiased voice would be a good thing in all the arguing and confrontation? Atheists who believe in reason and practice it themselves could be at the forefront of championing better standards of education, political discourse and human rights.

But that can only happen if atheists as individuals and as a group learn to contribute more than the pathetic, childish name-calling and sniping which the most public figures limit themselves to. Nobody's going to take atheists seriously as long as their most prominent contribution to society is acting like kunckle-dragging schoolyard bullies whose only aim is to drag everyone else down to their level.

What's more, atheists as individuals aren't going to get the respect and consideration they deserve until they put aside the bitterness and anger which drives them to those behaviours. Nobody believes that someone whose first instinct is to call names, make accusations and shout is a happy, fulfilled person.

Maybe some of that sites badly with you; perhaps it even offends you and if does I'm sorry. Not all atheists are that way, but it's clear that the most prominent, who have the support and adulation of a lot of atheists are exactly like that. Isn't it high time certain atheists started being positive about atheism instead of just negative about religion?

[geo]

Maybe some of that sites badly with you; perhaps it even offends you and if does I'm sorry. Not all atheists are that way, but it's clear that the most prominent, who have the support and adulation of a lot of atheists are exactly like that. Isn't it high time certain atheists started being positive about atheism instead of just negative about religion?

Thanks for the post. We have seen only in the last ten or twenty years an amazing change in attitudes towards religion. Most of us atheists were raised in some religion or other and we represent the first generation to actually question and reject religion. I myself have been very critical of organized religion in the past, but I have come to accept its positive aspects or, at least, recognize that religion gives many people a a framework for understanding the world. However, I still feel that the the absurd aspects of religion should be openly confronted. When a U.S. congressman says we don't need to worry about global warming because it says in the Bible that God will never destroy the world again, I think the appropriate response is mockery because that kind of delusional belief is dangerous. Who else is going to confront such absurd beliefs than atheists? There is a tendency to give religion a free pass and only those who are outside the belief system are willing to challenge it.

As for online forums, you will always find a certain percentage of all people who resort to name-calling and insults on the internet. Go to the comments section of any online article and it takes about three comments before someone starts ranting and hurling insults at others. It's an unfortunate aspect of the online anonymity. I would expect age and general maturity level have much to do with it.

[DWill]

Even if he sometimes sounds too harsh about religion, for me Sam Harris has a talent for putting just the right spin on a point. Although of course he is atheist (adjective), he doesn't call himself an atheist. He doesn't do that for the same reason that he doesn't call himself a non-astrologer; what would be the point of defining himself by thoughts or beliefs he just doesn't have? So the answer, for me, is not to be positive about atheism, but just to be positive about my values and let them speak for themselves.