| Research shows that authoritarians are far more likely to exhibit “sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and—to top it all off—a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.” |
C: It is indeed becoming a belief system with rules for true belonging and ostracism for divergent beliefs.
Matthew: Can you give examples of this as well? I ask in the spirit of being an organizer/co-organizer for several meetup groups, and would like to be aware of what to watch out for.
A: Watch out for meetup group members being banned without warning and without reason. Funny you should ask, Matthew. It just happened in the Eastside Atheist/Agnostic meetup which you co-organize.
From Matthew Medina:
I wrote you personally, but I also wanted to address this point since you put this [?] in front of this group. The bannings that have happened at Eastside Atheists were not taken lightly [irrelevant], or conducted without reason [without good reason]. The individuals banned took actions [?] which the [intolerant and petty narcissistic] organizer, Gloria, believed [rationalized] to be detrimental to her group [intentional vagueness] not because of divergent beliefs [wordplay]. You are free to question [I humbly thank you, oh mighty one, for allowing me to speak my mind!] whether those actions [?] warranted a response such as banning [that’s what I was doing], but as an organizer of a meetup myself [irrelevant], I can say that I support her right [= might makes right—and “I want that power, too.”] to make those kinds of [intolerant and hateful] decisions [that hurt people]. She pays the fee to keep the meetup going [not true; she takes collections], and does all [much of] the work of running it [irrelevant], so yes she is entitled [= might makes right] to make [unjust and inhumane] decisions about [penalizing and ostracizing peers] how the meetup is run. Having said that, I don’t think it’s out of the question [as a superior, I can tolerate] for you, or anyone, to address any grievances you have with her group to her personally [I grant you my permission to talk with Gloria] – I would recommend [as an authority on such matters and your superior] any further discussion [now that I’ve had my say] on this be directed to her, rather than in the mailing list of this group [Do as I say, not as I do.].
I hope that clarifies the situation. [No, the only thing that is clarified is your grandiosity, narrow authoritarian outlook, and callous disregard for the feelings and rights of fellow human beings. Summarily: “Gloria banned people from the group without considering the harm it causes them because Gloria has the right to ban people and she decided to do it because she felt like doing it, so she did. And that is why she is right.”]
Matthew
[Comments by A]
Matthew,
I made reference to events in another meetup group when giving an answer to your question about intolerance. It was not my intention to change the topic as I do agree that this is not the place for discussing the specific situations that you have described. Neither is it appropriate for personal matters, such as remarks of a personal nature to another member. That is disrespectful. I especially resent the condescending advice and permissions apparently directed at me personally, and without reason. Let’s be civil!
As you have initiated a discussion about meetup member bans, I would like to respond to some of your remarks.
Your posting clarifies your views, not the reality of the situation. I would like to contribute to a more nuanced view. What I meant by members being banned without reason was of course without valid reason, unfairly, or without being given a hearing or a comprehensible explanation. Recently, members were kicked out of an atheist meetup group for most ambiguous reasons. I found sufficient evidence to indicate that divergent beliefs and intolerance played a decisive role, although this was never admitted to. I have yet to meet someone who recognizes their own intolerance. For obvious reasons, bigotry is never given as an official explanation when an individual is forcefully excluded from a group.
Another matter of principle that I wish to comment on is your might makes right position regarding the meetup organizer’s decisions. When anyone makes a decision that will affect another human being, I would much prefer—or even demand—that it be made with concern for the consequences to the affected individual and with the highest regard for humanist values, rather than simply justified by the decision maker’s position. I shall never feel obliged to respect or support bad, unfair, unethical decisions that impact the lives of others. I was surprised and most disappointed to see authoritarianism validated on this list.
“…we should encourage each other to apply skepticism, reason, and critical thinking in response to claims made by others in our own community.”
Sounds good, but … how is that done without getting punched in the face? Almost all atheists I’ve met identify very strongly with those values and pride themselves as committed representatives though they don’t actually practice what they preach. They are easily offended if this is hinted.
Dawkins help us…
When becoming involved in my local atheist community, I thought I had found ‘like minded’ friends; rational, reasonable, open-minded people committed to truthfulness and living with integrity. I was wrong. Realizing the magnitude of my misjudgment, as the microscopic views came into focus, has been a traumatizing and life changing experience. Appearances are highly valued in this culture, much higher than genuineness and integrity. Psychopaths; charming, intelligent, confident, and deceptive, are admired, followed, emulated, and defended as they rise in the ranks of atheist organizations just as in all other types of human hierarchies. This is a HUGE problem for humanity. The people without a moral conscience are the people who aim for positions of power and influence, and their ruthlessness and cunning gets them there. Can the ‘good folks’ ever win? No, at least not as long as general knowledge of psychopathy is lacking and evil-doers evade detection and enjoy protection from a ‘psychopath friendly’ culture.
Educate yourself. Inform others. Visit Psychopath Resistance.
Conversation between 3 atheists |
|
A: Now we have something in common with the values [peace and justice] of Evangelical Christians and this is part of a growing Christian left movement. This comment hints to a larger ideological issue: Which is more important for a progressive, harmonious future for humankind; defeating religion/promoting atheism or defeating intolerance/promoting pluralism? On a personal level as an atheist, I find it hard to imagine myself ‘compatible’ with evangelical Christians. However, I most certainly prefer open minded, compassionate people with religious beliefs to intolerant judgmental atheists. |
|
C: Wow, do I hear that one. I’ve long worried about the growing orthodoxy of some parts of the secular movement.…It is indeed becoming religion-like. Orwellian double-think, I think! Tolerance and open-mindedness…much more important than defending a particular belief-turf. |
|
Matthew: I can’t agree with that. Can you give examples of this? I ask in the spirit of being an organizer/co-organizer for several meetup groups, and would like to be aware of what to watch out for. |
|
A: Watch out for meetup group members being banned without warning and without reason. Funny you should ask, Matthew. It just happened in the Eastside Atheist/Agnostic meetup group which you co-organize. |
• • Matthew • •
Photo: nic0
Many share the disappointment in discovering that they sure as heck are not. There are an awful lot of self-aggrandizing delusional people who mistakenly believe that they are more rational than most. Anyone who throws a fit when reasonably challenged is a likely candidate for that category.
White Coat Underground:
“But atheists often identify as or with humanists, and see themselves as a voice of rational thought and good behavior without the shackles of irrational beliefs. And that’s nice, but not really consistent with reality. Atheists are just as irrational as the religious, just as susceptible to prejudice, hate, fear. They just use different language.”
Whitecoatunderground: The Responsibility of Atheists
|
…“God exists” is a claim… If you make that claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.
Bob Seidensticker
Hypocrite Extraordinaire
Galileo Unchained
Atheist Heresy 