Atheists DO NOT need a safe space.

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlphaLogica157's picture
Atheists DO NOT need a safe space.

I must admit that I am shocked, upon my return to this page, after about a year break, I have seen a new trend of atheists condemning theists for daring to challenge our lack of belief in the god of theism as an affront to some B.S "safe space". Last time I checked this is not tumbler, and the regressive leftist tactic of shutting down debate, within a page dedicated to debate, is not welcomed. NOTHING is more antithetical to the tradition of Atheistic writing than then the very notion of a safe space. If one cannot handle their position being challenged, then that one admits that they have no good reason to hold that position in the first place. If you require a safe space, then go hide under your blanket of willful ignorance. I do not need or require your defense, if I am wrong then I reserve the right to have my position challenged. This is what it means to have an open mind, I am am very comfortable defending my position, as I have spent the last 14 years of my life studying the Abrahamic religions, just so I can be sure that there is not a single shred of truth to the notion of a theistic god.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Seenyab4's picture
I am sincerely sorry for my

I am sincerely sorry for my behavior in the previous thread of the debate section of the forums. I am new to this website, and didn't realize that I was in the debate section. I didn't ask the user to leave the website, because I couldn't handle her asking me a question. I asked her to leave, because I didn't think that we were in a debate setting at the time. As such, I wrongfully thought it was inappropriate for her to challenge our beliefs, in that setting, because I thought it would only lead to an enlarged hostility that didn't need to happen.

Looking back, I see that I was wrong to have responded in the way that I did, and to anyone who was offended, I sincerely apologize.

AlphaLogica157's picture
You have already apologized

You have already apologized on the thread itself and that is all that is required of you. You do not need to do so again, This thread was not directed at you personally, as you are not the only one who has done this. This trend of shutting down debate is bigger than your single comment and has been a problem within the atheistic community as far back as the cancer known as Atheism+. So again, please do not feel personally attacked as it was not solely about you.

Seenyab4's picture
Thank you, at the time I

Thank you, at the time I posted my apology in this thread I wasn't aware you had responded to my apology in the previous thread. I am also curious about this Atheism+ you mentioned. I haven't been an atheist for very long, and I am new to the scene, so I am not familiar with the term.

AlphaLogica157's picture
To put it simply Atheism+ is

To put it simply Atheism+ is a movement of atheists+ feminists/pseudo-liberals/anarchists/ etc who believe that Atheism is about more than simply a position of none belief in a theistic God and should therefore seek to interject itself into every aspect of identity politics. They seek to turn atheism into more than it is. The problem is that when challenged on pretty much anything, they seek to insult, and condemn the character of those who disagree, for example, if one were to make an argument that Islam is not a religion of peace, it would be the Atheism+ followers who would lay accusations of racism, against the individual, instead of responding to the argument itself. They are not interested in clarifying what it actually means to be an atheist, but publicly shame anyone who disagrees with them, then block them from responding before they have a chance to defend themselves. They are also referred to as Social Justice Warriors, or (my personal favorite) Regressive Leftists, because they claim to be liberal but seek to destroy the very foundation of classical liberalism (free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion etc.) In my opinion Atheism+ has gone unchecked by the Atheistic community at large and something needs to be done to salvage all the hard work put forth by figures like Bertrand Russel, Christopher Htichens, David Hume, Voltaire etc.

mykcob4's picture

Your post is nothing more than a political rant. You decry anyone that would challenge you on the statement that islam is not a religion of peace. It's you, and your political views that are at issue here. You make blanket statements about Liberals, about feminist.
I don't know who or what Atheism+ is, but I'm sure your blanket insult statements don't apply.
I am atheist. I am also Liberal. I am also progressive. I am not an anarchist, nor do I "want to destroy the foundation of classic liberalism", whatever the hell that really is. I'm quite certain you don't even now.
If you make blanket racist statements then I will challenge you. So if you choose to rant and be a hypocrite, sobeit. A word to heed. Racist usual don't understand their racism.

AlphaLogica157's picture
You have no basis for this

You have no basis for this criticism, and at best are demonstrating an exercise in cognitive dissonance. You disagree with me politically and feel i am wrong more than you know. You have already offered a better response and ill stick to that, but I would like to point out that your angst does not make for a valid response. If i am wrong then prove it.

Pitar's picture
Safety is a false logic and

Safety is a false logic and can find no harbor amongst men. It can only be enjoyed as a notion in the resolve of a common humanity in living harmony and, for the love of Mike, that would be boring. Bloodshed is man's normal undertaking. Where would he be without it? Abnormal. He would wither. But, the myopia of utopia is also a common theme woven into the surreal landscape that men of all ages, color and cut have conjured up for themselves. It makes a good read. It can be found in today's printed matter and far back into the archeological records of antiquity. We currently cite them for man's woes; belief systems.

But, on a platform of mine versus yours, jousting theism against atheism is a fool's game. Conversion is not logical. Hope-based dream-scapes theists do not readily deny. Mortality-based resignations of the atheists cannot be baited by fairy tales. Nothing is won in a game where something to lose is the rule of engagement. Kinda dumb, really, but the capacity for communication does not the genius make.

AlphaLogica157's picture
There are a few issues with

There are a few issues with your response that I would like to address.

":But, on a platform of mine versus yours, jousting theism against atheism is a fool's game. Conversion is not logical. "

Here I must disagree, as everyone holds some internal logic for why it is they believe/not believe any given proposition, no matter how illogical it is by any measure of the word. If what you said is true then the philosophical efforts of weeding out rhetorical fallacies would never have taken place, and yet, we have categorized many such fallacies, simply because the art of disputation is rooted in logical analysis.

"but the capacity for communication does not the genius make."

I point you to the entire efforts of both Theists and Atheists alike, was it not William of Occam (A theologian) who invented Occam's Razor? A method for cutting down bad arguments in order to get closer to the Truth insofar as human reason can allow? Or how about the efforts of Socrates, who through the dialectic alone destroyed the argument from morality?

I believe your position to be one of "the man in the middle" who thinks himself profound because he attempts to straddle the fence, condemning both sides, while patting himself on the back.

Deidre32's picture
I initially joined this site

I initially joined this site as an atheist, and then came back to faith last year...and this is a very interesting thread. Refreshingly so.

AlphaLogica157's picture
I am curious as to why it is

I am curious as to why it is that you went back to a position of faith, and what specific religion you have faith in? The point of this thread is to defend the right of theists who seek to challenge the atheistic position of non-belief, and remind my fellow atheists that we are obligated to continue the tradition of free inquiry either for or against, in the same way as those who set the very foundation that we as atheists now walk upon.

mykcob4's picture
Some things you posted I

Some things you posted I agree but others I totally disagree. I agree that atheist should welcome a challenge to not believing in a god. Debate is healthy.
Shutting down debate is NOT a leftist tactic. For you to say so is very telling of the political propaganda that you have consumed.
I do think that is it good that there is the atheist hub. A place where atheist can commune without fear of reprisal. If you have noticed, there are a great number of atheist that need a safe place. A place where their thoughts are not held against them. Some of our new members are as young as 16. They come here because they are persecuted. they come here because they live in places that being an atheist is a capital offense.
So yes, I challenge your overall position on two very distinct points. I challenge it here in this forum where open debate is welcome, in the debate forum.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Excellent, a genuine effort

Excellent, a genuine effort of disagreement that I thank you for. Now on to the problems in your response.

"Shutting down debate is NOT a leftist tactic. For you to say so is very telling of the political propaganda that you have consumed."

Now I could say the exact same to you, and it would be just as equally valid. What is to say that your disagreement is not solely based on a position of liberal affiliation? Here I would like to point to the very notion of a safe space on college campuses by liberals who dis-invite speakers simply for holding a belief that is counter to their own, ( ayaan hirsi ali, for example) or conservative commentators in general, this action of non-platforming is only expressed in places where liberals hold the most power, hell even Bill Mahur was almost stopped from giving a commencement speech simply because he criticizes Islam. I could go on but I think I have sufficiently demonstrated my point, and shown to a small extent that your disagreement was not rooted in fact but of personal political affiliation on your part.

"if you have noticed, there are a great number of atheist that need a safe place. A place where their thoughts are not held against them. Some of our new members are as young as 16. They come here because they are persecuted. they come here because they live in places that being an atheist is a capital offense."

No, this is not Pakistan, where such a website would be banned by the government, but an Atheist
republic, an ideological meeting ground rooted in the very principles set forth by figures of the past who, under persecution and a very real threat of death, spoke out against theism, authority that cannot be questioned, and its evils (Giodorno Bruno anyone?) You do no one any favors by sheltering them from criticism, and only become the very thing you are against. The foundation of education is free inquiry, and the Abrahamic religions (for example) have a word for free inquiry...blasphemy.

jay-h's picture
While shutting down debate is

While shutting down debate is not exclusively leftist, in the current environment, particularly in the nation's colleges, that becoming more and more of an issue, and predominantly from the left --look at some of Jerry Coyne's (whyevolutionistrue) many discussions of the issue. Jerry very much considers himself a left liberal, but is deeply disturbed by the turn of events. People are arguing that even the presence of a political conservative or an abortion opponent on the campus made them feel 'unsafe'. I agree with him a lot, but Jerry is hoping the left can be saved from the new Jacobins, whereas I feel it's poisonous from the ground up and cannot be trusted with power.

From my observation, the left is very much concerned with group cohesion and agreement as to what the truth is (groupthink if you will). When people don't all agree, as they always will, the resulting problem is that not all see 'the truth'. So whether it's the mini purges in US colleges or the bloody ones of Mao and Stalin, the very existence of independent thinkers who disagree with the approved opinions undermines the system.

An example was a student government member in Texas who dared to suggest that 'all lives matter'. She was disbarred from her post, and forced to undergo 'diversity training' (re-education) by the administration.

AlphaLogica157's picture
When one takea offense at an

When one takea offense at an all inclusive statement such as All lives matter, then they are the very definition of a segregationist. Black lives matter IS segregationist movement masquerading as civil rights.

CyberLN's picture
"BlackLivesMatter doesn't

"BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't. Like people who say 'Save the rain forests' aren't saying 'fuck all other types of forests'." - Matt McGorry

AlphaLogica157's picture
@Cyberlyn that is a complete

@Cyberlyn that is a complete false equivalency, to put is this way, if the motto was White lives matter, you would not hesitate to point out the very racist intent behind such a statement. Yet somehow the segregationists have convienced you that they hold they moral high ground. And i am sorry but the VERY DEFINITION of segregation proves you wrong. Words have meaning and its not choose your own definition. To segregate is to set apart, and the distinction that Black lives matter specifically sets them apart from all others. There is no way around this, you either recognise this or you do not, but I have the benefit of the dictionary supporting my argument. What do you have?

Seenyab4's picture
Furthermore, their actions

Furthermore, their actions only further prove Alpha's argument. They have called for hate, violence, and bigotry against other groups of people, such as police. They have called for "safe havens" which will only further institute segregation, and constantly blow out of proportion the deaths of a few individuals, so they can use them as examples of "racism."

AlphaLogica157's picture
Add to that the FACT that BLM

Add to that the FACT that BLM is a reemergence of the Black Liberation Army which carried out a series of bombings and kidnappings, this is why they all are obsessed with Assata Shukur, and even cite the BLA on their website. Its only those who uncritically accept BLM who can honestly believe that they have anything good to offer as a movement. I could show multiple examples of BLM activists knowingly segregating whites at rallys, forcing them to the back of the crowd all in the name on "inclusiveness" I wonder if Rosa Parks felt included when she was at the back of the bus.

Nyarlathotep's picture
AlphaLogica - "@Cyberlyn that

AlphaLogica - "@Cyberlyn that is a complete false equivalency"

It was not a false equivalence; for starters it wasn't even an equivalence.

AlphaLogica157's picture
False equivalence is a

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

He offered that quote as a means of comparing the explanation of Black Lives matter as similiar to that of save the rain forest. So....i think you are incorrect.

Nyarlathotep's picture
No equivalence was given. You

No equivalence was given; you can't have a false equivalence without an equivalence.

If the quote had been "black lives matter" is the same as "save the rain forests"; you might have somewhere to go with this. But that isn't what was said.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Maybe read his quote again.

Maybe read his quote again. Then take a second and think about what it could mean in light of the discussion. Just because you missed the point does not change it. Now if you actually have something to offer to the discussion then I welcome it, if not then you are free to post it but will simply be ignored.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ignoring me won't change the

Ignoring me won't change the fact: you can't have a false equivalence without an equivalence. This statement isn't that controversial.

AlphaLogica157's picture
That you refuse to see the

That you refuse to see the obvious intent behind the quote changes nothing. You either see what is meant by it or you do not, I am done indulging your refusal to acknowledge this. If you need a class on logical fallicies then i encourage you to google it, then come back when you are all caught up.

Nyarlathotep's picture
AlphaLogica - "That you

AlphaLogica - "That you refuse to see the obvious intent behind the quote"

Oh I understand now. You are saying the equivalence was contained in the unspoken (or un-written) "obvious intent behind the quote". This is where our disagreement came from. See my telepathy module isn't working right now, so I only have access to what is actually written.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Ok so it seems the problem is


Ok so it seems the problem is your capacity for understanding the English language, so allow to to provide you with a desperately needed lesson. Now pay attention because I do not enjoy your declaration of ignorance.

A synonym is a word or phrase that means nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

"BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't."

"Like people who say" ( here we see the word like, in this context "like" is synonymous with:

preposition: like

having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to.

another way to say similar is:

resembling without being identical.

synonyms: alike, (much) the same, indistinguishable, almost identical, homogeneous, homologous;
"you two are very similar"
comparable, like, corresponding, homogeneous, EQUIVALENT , analogous

'Save the rain forests' aren't saying 'fuck all other types of forests'." - Matt McGorry

Now that I have successfully demonstrated that you are wrong, I look forward to your retraction =)

Nyarlathotep's picture
alike, (much) the same,

alike, (much) the same, indistinguishable, almost identical, homogeneous, homologous; do not set up an equivalence.

Bob is like Joe, because they have brown hair. -> Is not an equivalence.

Bob is Joe, because they have brown hair. -> Is an equivalence.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Oh talk about a very poor

Oh talk about a very poor attempt at saving face. Well You cant because your little explanation is trumped a THESAURUS, but hey why let facts get in the way, when you can just double down and ignore. =)

CyberLN's picture
What do I have? All I have

What do I have? All I have is the conviction that black lives matter. So do all lives. Right now, tho, I'm paying attention to those specific lives. In doing so, I am not, in any way, shape, or form suggest that those lives are more important. What I am saying is that those lives matter as well. If you, though, think that a totem pole of value does not, nor has ever existed based on things like color then I will call you deluded.
What #BlackLivesMatter is saying is that it is time we collectively acknowledge that there is still color-based inequality in many places. Until or unless we are able to start with that acknowledgement we will never be able to change it.
Do all lives matter? Yes. Have white lives mattered, frequently, more that black ones? Hell yes! Perhaps what is missing is he word 'too' lives, brown lives, Amerindian lives, female lives, poor lives, common lives, atheist lives, all matter TOO.
It is NOT meant to segregate. It is meant to INCLUDE.

AlphaLogica157's picture
"It is NOT meant to segregate

"It is NOT meant to segregate. It is meant to INCLUDE."

So segregation in the name of inclusiveness...think about that for a minute.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.