Thanks, Hemant. This wouldn’t have been possible without your pitch for why this is important - and transformative.
This isn’t your grandfather’s AHA. We are building a movement that can counter the religious right with a message about what makes a good and moral life that is grounded in compassion and reason. We are going to take them on not just in the courts but in the culture war - and we will win.
I'm nearing eighty, and the changes that have occurred in my lifetime are absolutely remarkable. Organized religion is desperate to get our secular government to backstop their sense of privilege. There's a powerful message there. The sexual abuse scandals, one after another, have gone a long way toward knocking the clergy off their pedestal. There is still a long way to go, but as Carl Sagan said, “Religion is an ever receding ball of ignorance.” The long game does not favor Christianity or any other brand of supernatural nonsense.
In the midst of all of this, I feel as though I have to restate something that was a damned hard lesson for me to learn: that this struggle NEVER ENDS, and it is one that we and those that come after us will have to fight continuously.
And yeah, I have to break out this morsel of wisdom yet again:
Agree completely. At 72, I have long realized that a comfortable complacency arising from the unwarranted and empirically bankrupt presumption of political permanance is part of the reason we are in the growing hellscape of MAGA regime control. Things will not be "fixed" by one election, one law, one war, one program, or one protest. If anything, the last 50 years have demonstrated what persistent, ruthless effort has been able to accomplish (many would say destroy) while empathetic people slept, convinced that the end of history was upon us and liberalism won - a delusion that is only a bit less enduring than religious myths.
I hope we are waking up - I do not ascribe to those who say all is lost; it simply will take time, effort, and persistence in the face of true persecution (our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor).
Sadly, some people don't have the band-width for nuanced thinking. They will always fall prey to the superstition of organized fundamentalist religion.
It may just be my feed, but there are so many creators out there talking about atheism that are not seen as atheist. There are people who talk about politics, or about ecology, or about knitting, or many other subjects, who also are open and free about their lack of belief. I follow Godless Mom, the Godless Gardener, but I also follow many others that don’t identify their atheism up front but include their skepticism in their videos. There’s also quite a few, mostly female, creators that discuss their experiences with some of the more extreme cultish sects and how they have escaped and what the abuse was.
That’s one thing I didn’t see clearly in your examples Hemant, women. I hope that the AHA is looking for strong examples of female voices because we know that atheism is still seen as a boys club. When in reality, women are the most damaged by religious influences. They are also the ones who influence the religious traditions within families the most. The more we can connect with young women, the less likely future generations will seek religion. I did see the first video example was a woman, I just wanted to remind everyone to keep us in mind as the program moves forward. We are often used up front to get attention but then neglected later as programs and services gain success.
Yes - part of the goal is to support and lift up new voices, and that means making an explicit effort to seek out and invest in female creators and creators of color. Not that we aren’t supporting white dudes too (obviously!) but ensuring we have a diversity of voices representing our movement is critical and requires specific effort.
Good stuff. As far as technique is concerned, there's also Peter Boghossian's A Manual For Creating Atheists. As with the above video and "engineering a crack in the brainwashing," it takes TIME and a lot of patience, and it's not a technique which is suited for everyone (probably not me, too!).
But that was a great video and a damned fine example.
I didn't want to say anything and I pondered if I should since I read your comment but I find you tone deaf here, Val initial comment was about how Atheism visible figures are too often white men and how you need to show you are actually diverse and welcoming, and you answer her by talking about a white man.
I mention Boghossian and his book purely because I think it describes a valid technique for deprogramming someone who is in a cult or a fixed and invariant thought process. I thought that related to the woman's similar description of that same process.
Is he the only one to have written on this topic ? That's the same passive social bias I found years ago when I reorganized my books shelves, 80 to 90 % of the books I owned were written by white men*. Why ? Because they are the ones most promoted. Thinking back to my French/literature classes, it's also what I was teached because I can't name any mandatory reading not written by a white man. Deconstruction doesn't stop at cults or religions.
*I am still in the process to buy and read more content written by non white authors.
PS : just in case, I am not saying you are sexist. I am talking about the insidious cultural biases that we absorb while growing.
Yes! Here’s another creator that’s really popular right now. I didn’t grow up with any religion, so it’s fascinating for me to hear women who did share their knowledge and experiences with that.
"It may just be my feed, but there are so many creators out there talking about atheism that are not seen as atheist. "
The thing about atheism is that it is dull. It can be summed up in a single sentence, "An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods". That's it, being atheist says nothing about your political, social, scientific or ethical attitudes.
(Incidentally, theism is much more convoluted. Theists do not believe in the generality of gods, they believe in a single god or pantheon of gods and have a confused attitude to gods outside of their beliefs. Do they lack belief in these gods, believe that they do not exist or that they are simply a mistaken reference to their own god(s)? Try find a copy of Marjorie Leach's "Guide to the Gods" - https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/guide-to-the-gods-marjorie-leach/14ec4a01e6f34cbb?ean=9780874365917&next=t, which gives a list of gods running to nearly a thousand pages.)
"When in reality, women are the most damaged by religious influences. "
"Do they lack belief in these gods, believe that they do not exist or that they are simply a mistaken reference to their own god(s)?"
It not not that I don't believe in them, or that they don't exist or that they are a mistaken reference to my Goddess (not sure what the last point means). I just don't worship them. The same way an Atheist don't worship or believe in any God(dess).
The difference between "lack of belief in X" and "belief in X" is ontological commitment.
If I have a lack of belief, then I am not making an ontological commitment. If I lack belief that there is an elephant in your fridge, then I am not saying that there is, or there is not.
However, if I have belief that a proposition is true, then I am making an ontological commitment and I have a burden of proof. If a theist says that none of the gods in "The Guide to the Gods" exist (apart from Jesus) then it is down to him to demonstrate this.
One of the claims that I have seen is that while Hindus believe in Vishnu, this is just a misattribution, since Vishnu is in fact just another name for Jesus.
With people leaving the church in droves and not taking up new churches or even religion itself, they're might an opportunity to reach out to the disgruntled and show them a better way forward.
Many leave the church but continue to believe their Deity exists. Big difference between being anti-religion and atheist. That distinction should be included in the messaging.
Jesus, Allah and Yahweh won't like it. But they're powerless to stop it.
It's about damned time we started cribbing notes from the right-wing propaganda machine. They're wrong on just about every material detail about the world and everyone in it, but I've gotta give them this much: the bastards 𝘥𝘰 know how to get a message out, and how to make it stick.
This is our biggest mountain to climb. Content creators on 'conservative'* platforms have to follow the line, bend the knee and never think for themselves. As such, they spew propaganda at the masses. They live by the motto "repeat a lie enough times...". People don't want to hear the truth, they want to be lied to, especially when it comes to their religion and who they want to hate. They want to believe that they are the moral people while demonizing those who disagree with their obvious fallacies. Add into all of this the fact that the propaganda they are consuming is fed to them by rich oligarchs and foreign dictators? It's no wonder the masses don't want the truth.
*yes, scare quotes for conservatives, they are not conservative if they vote for fascism and authoritarianism. They can claim to be conservative all they want but it's just another lie they tell to themselves.
The “conservative” platforms also are literally given scripts they must follow. Video after video of word for word ranting come out of right wing propaganda creators get pumped into the gullible masses. (How that’s not a tip off for them that what they’re watching isn’t real, is beyond me.) Right now it’s the, “good you’re losing SNAP benefits, I’m not here to pay for your junk food addiction. You should only get a box of the bare minimum specifics that I think you deserve and not a bottomless credit card for Oreos and chips.” But last week it was something else the entire right was spouting word for word. Even the manosphere is part of this. “There’s nothing more disgusting than a woman who works for her own money and is independent.”
We don’t want to fall into that trap, that’s for sure. But that is why the left keeps getting criticized for their lack of messaging. Or even why we’re accused of cancelling our own so often. We encourage thinking for one’s self instead of parroting party line. Despite what the right thinks and says about the left.
I am in complete agreement that it is necessary to get an atheist / humanist message out to a wider and more diverse audience, and the kind of sponsorship and support the American Humanist Association is offering is a terrific step (maybe several steps!) in that direction. Still, maybe I'm not getting it here, but mostly, it seems as though we're just talking about YouTube and podcast media here, and I think the scope needs to be wider than that.
I'm old school (74 years, crowding 75), and I still watch TV. I remember being thrilled when Ron Reagan's "not afraid of burning in hell" promo for the Freedom From Religion Foundation ad found its way to The Rachel Maddow Show, and positively STUNNED when CBS News 60 Minutes used it as well. If we're going to do this, we need to BROADCAST as well as narrow-cast.
And I hope that is being considered by those who support putting our message out there.
I am afraid your country is not ready for an Atheist/Humanist program, yet. France as a whole is more secular and there is still programs all Sundays morning on France 2 (a public channel) consecrated to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism. Maybe Orthodox too, but I don't watch TV. Notice what is absent of the list.
If AHA wants to reach late teens, then Youtube and social medias are definitely the road to go.
Regarding Millennials and GenZ (and what's next? Gen Alpha, is it?), absolutely you're right and no argument. Social media in its various forms is likely the best venue. Still, there are Boomers and GenXers out there who may be reached with more "traditional" media.
I came to deconversion largely through reading "The Friendly Atheist". I found my way here through a link in an article that had been reprinted on "Raw Story". I guess I am old school, since I am more of a reader than a viewer. FA changed my life, and I share it with as many people as I can.
I restack every column, even though I have a small reach, just like I do with Jessica Valenti's Abortion every day substack, these things should be common knowledge.
DM watched TV a lot but she also used streaming platforms, and watched YouTube. Like you, she adopted new technologies quite fast.
Worth a shot ? Definitely. But from my understanding, those who select what to (?) on majors channels are mostly on the conservative side. Either in your country or mine. So, the older audience who would need the most to see that wouldn't get access anyway.
From this generation X/Millennial (if those who created these groups could find a consensus on a fixed year, either 79 or 81, ça serait gentil, merci) 😝
I don't think there are any nationally broadcast religious shows any more (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS). Local affiliates might air religious programs on Sunday. Cable TV is another story. Dozens of stations (That I pay for, but never watch, grrrr.)
OT - I’m going to be away today because I am in a show tonight. I’m getting some rest right now but soon I’m going to be practicing a bit and then getting ready, dressed and make up. If you’re interested here’s some links, there one to watch the live stream/youtube which should be available 7:00pm central time.
I’m in three different scenes, it’s a collection of scenes from multiple plays or single scenes rather than one play. I will be in another play like this in February as well, I will have two monologues and then some single lines in transitions for that one.
I also will be in a staged radio play of Its a Wonderful Life, so not a traditional play. That one I have four characters to play. Thankfully I will not have to memorize my lines, but I will have to change voices and stuff to be four different people. This will be in December.
Science comes through again, while religion continues to fail.
This 14-Year-Old Built an App That Detects Heart Diseases in Seconds
Siddarth Nandyala wants to put his tool in the hands of medical professionals so that they can catch cardiovascular abnormalities in their early stages
Damn. Ninety-six percent accuracy is pretty damned impressive, and the fact that Ahmed appreciates that a cell phone isn't exactly a precision medical instrument. Further progress with his innovation will be VERY interesting to see!
I’m researching a vacation trip to Arizona. Checking out the various ways to see the Grand Canyon when I noticed the GC Creation Tour. Yup, a 4 hour tour to learn all about creation. Ends with a prayer at sunset “with the One who created it”.
This approach is essential. I love to read but many people watch videos or digital content. It's a different world and the methods used to reach the wider audience need to change with the times.
Interesting this "pinned" bizzo. I was watching a talk on the movie Gettysburg, given by a professor who was wearing a T-shirt with various signs on it and some small writing underneath them. And some guy said something like the last thing I need is to watch a a professor talk about Gettysburg with an 'inclusion' T-shirt on. People then gleefully pointed out that it was in fact a Gettysburg T-shirt and the symbols were the badges of the regiments involved or something. And the professor equally gleefully said "This is gonna be pinned!" So that guy is going to be embarrassed forever. :)
OT: In news that incites rage and despair (and maybe even thoughts of razors and wrists) A recent poll in NJ suggests the Couchfucker is only 1 point behind Newsome in a hypothetical POTUS race. The poll is by SoCal and the story in Newsweek.
While I tend to agree that 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 is better than more MAGAt madness, and on that basis alone the results should show way more than just a single-point lead... Newsom really shouldn't be a serious contender. There should be much more pushback against his ambitions from the left. His media team, I will concede, has played a very good meme game online, but... politically, he's just another slice of stale Wonderbread, and he's already shown an uncomfortable willingness to throw marginalized people under the bus to score Centrism Points.
That may well be 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 enough, on the heels of an even more chaotic second Trump term, but... four more years down the line we'll be right back in it again, with another howling fascist lunatic shitting all over everything, because our electorate has the memory of a dead goldfish. We need someone who has more going for them than "I'm Not Trump" to win not only 2028, but 2032 as well, and Newsom is just 𝘯𝘰𝘵 that guy.
I'll vote for the sonofabitch if he wins the ticket, because I believe in ruthless pragmatism in general elections- what other choice do we have, at this point?- but he is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 getting my primary vote, and he shouldn't be getting anyone else's, either.
But who else? Unfortunately, it's got to be a man. Beto? Bernie? Not much good for 2032 most likely. Not that I wouldn't love Warren, but this country would rather have a tiny mushroom than a vagina.
This question also must be asked: How many votes are we already losing because the left is fed up with crusty old white men, and how does that compare with the number of votes we'd lose 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 crusty old white men not wanting to vote for a candidate without a cock? Harris came close. 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘺 damned close- and she took over the ticket 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 late in the race, so she had precious little time to 𝘨𝘦𝘵 so close. I suspect the perception that the DNC was playing cynical games with the ticket, and the votes already lost because the party chose to try to run Biden again in the first place- combining to present the appearance of a party lacking confidence in its own candidates- had more of an influence on the outcome than Harris being an 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘦 instead of an 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦.
But I suppose we'll have to see how progressives, and especially progressive women, fare in this year's and next year's elections. 𝘐𝘧, that is, elections continue to have any meaning at the federal level. Insert standard disclaimer about fascism and the imminent death of democracy here.
I'd like to think we're ready but two women lost against Trump, of all people. And in both cases polls showed the women ahead. But Trump lost to YAOWG.
Clinton was the target of a decades-long smear campaign by Republicans costing her votes from the center, and also had the baggage of her hawkish politics (among other things) costing her votes from the left- and she 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 took the popular vote, Electoral College be damned. Harris had a late, rocky start thanks to a boss who didn't know when to quit, and she 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 managed to almost completely turn things around, over the incompetence of party leadership, in the handful of months she actually got to lead the campaign for. If Clinton had made even a little bit of leftward shift to placate the protest voters who snubbed her over beating Sanders in the primary, or if Biden had thrown in the towel 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 that shitshow of a debate... I think we could've had 𝘵𝘸𝘰 women in the office by now. The polls showed each of them leading for a reason; anything within a few percentage points is close enough for 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 woman to have won if any number of factors, both within and beyond the control of their respective campaigns, had been even slightly different.
Again... I guess we'll see. But I have a hunch that progressives are going to fare rather better than center-right establishment Democrats, in the coming days- and that it won't make as much of a difference as most folks think what sort of hardware they've got between their thighs.
All that, and... well, Trump remains an anomaly. He's weathered 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘴 of scandals that would have outright ended any other person's career in politics- and, indeed, similar scandals have brought down multiple other politicians (one of whom he just recently pardoned) since he oozed his way down that stupid escalator; 𝘩𝘦 just seems to be exempt from the same pratfalls that would ruin other people in the same circumstances.
I think I'd put that down to the PR team he brought over from his previous career as a serial bankrupter of businesses. Even back then, he kept managing to somehow turd-polish his failures- even 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 he had Fox News on retainer to do it 24/7 on national TV. His entire personal history was just one spectacular failure after another, but through it all his name, his 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, was synonymous with success- if not at playing the game, then at least at flaunting the rules with impunity. I don't think any other Democrat would've had a better chance than Clinton or Harris did, against 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 kind of personality cult, and I think Biden only won because Trump's mismanagement of COVID was a 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 issue as of the 2020 election, rather than one he'd had a few years to slither his way out from under (as he 𝘩𝘢𝘥 done by 2024).
I think though that Newsome would be a better campaigner than CF. He shown a bit of talent at trolling trumpet – or rather his flunkies have perhaps. The other guy is as dull as ditch water.
Since 2016, neither do I, OTOH most of the research seems to point to an under-counting of conservative voters, and two, we are talking about two white penises and a large number of Americans apparently consider a penis a job requirement.
Thanks, Hemant. This wouldn’t have been possible without your pitch for why this is important - and transformative.
This isn’t your grandfather’s AHA. We are building a movement that can counter the religious right with a message about what makes a good and moral life that is grounded in compassion and reason. We are going to take them on not just in the courts but in the culture war - and we will win.
If anyone wants to make a gift to support the Creator Fund, email me at fstark@americanhumanist.org or donate directly at https://secure2.convio.net/ahuman/site/Donation2?1400.donation=form1&df_id=1400&mfc_pref=T&set.custom.Appeal=Unsolicited%20contrib
-Fish Stark, AHA
💖
I'm nearing eighty, and the changes that have occurred in my lifetime are absolutely remarkable. Organized religion is desperate to get our secular government to backstop their sense of privilege. There's a powerful message there. The sexual abuse scandals, one after another, have gone a long way toward knocking the clergy off their pedestal. There is still a long way to go, but as Carl Sagan said, “Religion is an ever receding ball of ignorance.” The long game does not favor Christianity or any other brand of supernatural nonsense.
In the midst of all of this, I feel as though I have to restate something that was a damned hard lesson for me to learn: that this struggle NEVER ENDS, and it is one that we and those that come after us will have to fight continuously.
And yeah, I have to break out this morsel of wisdom yet again:
𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑜 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑦. 𝑌𝑜𝑢 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑜𝑏 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑒.
-- Tim Gill
Agree completely. At 72, I have long realized that a comfortable complacency arising from the unwarranted and empirically bankrupt presumption of political permanance is part of the reason we are in the growing hellscape of MAGA regime control. Things will not be "fixed" by one election, one law, one war, one program, or one protest. If anything, the last 50 years have demonstrated what persistent, ruthless effort has been able to accomplish (many would say destroy) while empathetic people slept, convinced that the end of history was upon us and liberalism won - a delusion that is only a bit less enduring than religious myths.
I hope we are waking up - I do not ascribe to those who say all is lost; it simply will take time, effort, and persistence in the face of true persecution (our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor).
Resist. React. Repeat.
Sadly, some people don't have the band-width for nuanced thinking. They will always fall prey to the superstition of organized fundamentalist religion.
It may just be my feed, but there are so many creators out there talking about atheism that are not seen as atheist. There are people who talk about politics, or about ecology, or about knitting, or many other subjects, who also are open and free about their lack of belief. I follow Godless Mom, the Godless Gardener, but I also follow many others that don’t identify their atheism up front but include their skepticism in their videos. There’s also quite a few, mostly female, creators that discuss their experiences with some of the more extreme cultish sects and how they have escaped and what the abuse was.
That’s one thing I didn’t see clearly in your examples Hemant, women. I hope that the AHA is looking for strong examples of female voices because we know that atheism is still seen as a boys club. When in reality, women are the most damaged by religious influences. They are also the ones who influence the religious traditions within families the most. The more we can connect with young women, the less likely future generations will seek religion. I did see the first video example was a woman, I just wanted to remind everyone to keep us in mind as the program moves forward. We are often used up front to get attention but then neglected later as programs and services gain success.
This is exciting news, and hopeful.
Yes - part of the goal is to support and lift up new voices, and that means making an explicit effort to seek out and invest in female creators and creators of color. Not that we aren’t supporting white dudes too (obviously!) but ensuring we have a diversity of voices representing our movement is critical and requires specific effort.
This.
Here’s a video of one of the creators I’m thinking of that may not need AHA’s support, but I think is in line with their goals.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1FAmbqFD8P/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Good stuff. As far as technique is concerned, there's also Peter Boghossian's A Manual For Creating Atheists. As with the above video and "engineering a crack in the brainwashing," it takes TIME and a lot of patience, and it's not a technique which is suited for everyone (probably not me, too!).
But that was a great video and a damned fine example.
I didn't want to say anything and I pondered if I should since I read your comment but I find you tone deaf here, Val initial comment was about how Atheism visible figures are too often white men and how you need to show you are actually diverse and welcoming, and you answer her by talking about a white man.
I mention Boghossian and his book purely because I think it describes a valid technique for deprogramming someone who is in a cult or a fixed and invariant thought process. I thought that related to the woman's similar description of that same process.
That's it.
Is he the only one to have written on this topic ? That's the same passive social bias I found years ago when I reorganized my books shelves, 80 to 90 % of the books I owned were written by white men*. Why ? Because they are the ones most promoted. Thinking back to my French/literature classes, it's also what I was teached because I can't name any mandatory reading not written by a white man. Deconstruction doesn't stop at cults or religions.
*I am still in the process to buy and read more content written by non white authors.
PS : just in case, I am not saying you are sexist. I am talking about the insidious cultural biases that we absorb while growing.
You mean the alt right guy who faked a scientific paper? Not creditable.
Yes! Here’s another creator that’s really popular right now. I didn’t grow up with any religion, so it’s fascinating for me to hear women who did share their knowledge and experiences with that.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQcIkxyibVd/?igsh=bmx5eHBrZjdteTQy
I was thinking of adding her as well. I love Monte.
If she's "ugly" (as her father alleged), then (to use an OLD saying!) I'm a blue-nosed gopher!
"It may just be my feed, but there are so many creators out there talking about atheism that are not seen as atheist. "
The thing about atheism is that it is dull. It can be summed up in a single sentence, "An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods". That's it, being atheist says nothing about your political, social, scientific or ethical attitudes.
(Incidentally, theism is much more convoluted. Theists do not believe in the generality of gods, they believe in a single god or pantheon of gods and have a confused attitude to gods outside of their beliefs. Do they lack belief in these gods, believe that they do not exist or that they are simply a mistaken reference to their own god(s)? Try find a copy of Marjorie Leach's "Guide to the Gods" - https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/guide-to-the-gods-marjorie-leach/14ec4a01e6f34cbb?ean=9780874365917&next=t, which gives a list of gods running to nearly a thousand pages.)
"When in reality, women are the most damaged by religious influences. "
Agreed. Another of my contentions is that the religious-right in the US do not regard women as persons, i.e. that they do not have a personal identity - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/)
"Do they lack belief in these gods, believe that they do not exist or that they are simply a mistaken reference to their own god(s)?"
It not not that I don't believe in them, or that they don't exist or that they are a mistaken reference to my Goddess (not sure what the last point means). I just don't worship them. The same way an Atheist don't worship or believe in any God(dess).
There are a couple of points here:
The difference between "lack of belief in X" and "belief in X" is ontological commitment.
If I have a lack of belief, then I am not making an ontological commitment. If I lack belief that there is an elephant in your fridge, then I am not saying that there is, or there is not.
However, if I have belief that a proposition is true, then I am making an ontological commitment and I have a burden of proof. If a theist says that none of the gods in "The Guide to the Gods" exist (apart from Jesus) then it is down to him to demonstrate this.
One of the claims that I have seen is that while Hindus believe in Vishnu, this is just a misattribution, since Vishnu is in fact just another name for Jesus.
This fails, since "Jesus" and "Vishnu" do not have all their properties in common (Leibniz, the identity of indiscernibles - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/)
I am not a christian, I am a Pagan. I don't group all God(esse)s under one umbrella under a so called universality of a Monotheistic God :)
With people leaving the church in droves and not taking up new churches or even religion itself, they're might an opportunity to reach out to the disgruntled and show them a better way forward.
For all its bluster, Christianity just hasn't delivered on the promise to make the world a better place. If anything, they've made it worse.
'You can't explain the obvious to people who need the obvious explained.'
👆🎯Probably because the hierarchy never intended it to.
Many leave the church but continue to believe their Deity exists. Big difference between being anti-religion and atheist. That distinction should be included in the messaging.
Jesus, Allah and Yahweh won't like it. But they're powerless to stop it.
That's why I said "not taking up new churches or even religion itself." I'm talking about the ones who have shed all belief.
It's about damned time we started cribbing notes from the right-wing propaganda machine. They're wrong on just about every material detail about the world and everyone in it, but I've gotta give them this much: the bastards 𝘥𝘰 know how to get a message out, and how to make it stick.
Fear is their #1 motivator.
"...𝑖𝑓 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛’𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑢𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒’𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠..."
This is our biggest mountain to climb. Content creators on 'conservative'* platforms have to follow the line, bend the knee and never think for themselves. As such, they spew propaganda at the masses. They live by the motto "repeat a lie enough times...". People don't want to hear the truth, they want to be lied to, especially when it comes to their religion and who they want to hate. They want to believe that they are the moral people while demonizing those who disagree with their obvious fallacies. Add into all of this the fact that the propaganda they are consuming is fed to them by rich oligarchs and foreign dictators? It's no wonder the masses don't want the truth.
*yes, scare quotes for conservatives, they are not conservative if they vote for fascism and authoritarianism. They can claim to be conservative all they want but it's just another lie they tell to themselves.
The “conservative” platforms also are literally given scripts they must follow. Video after video of word for word ranting come out of right wing propaganda creators get pumped into the gullible masses. (How that’s not a tip off for them that what they’re watching isn’t real, is beyond me.) Right now it’s the, “good you’re losing SNAP benefits, I’m not here to pay for your junk food addiction. You should only get a box of the bare minimum specifics that I think you deserve and not a bottomless credit card for Oreos and chips.” But last week it was something else the entire right was spouting word for word. Even the manosphere is part of this. “There’s nothing more disgusting than a woman who works for her own money and is independent.”
We don’t want to fall into that trap, that’s for sure. But that is why the left keeps getting criticized for their lack of messaging. Or even why we’re accused of cancelling our own so often. We encourage thinking for one’s self instead of parroting party line. Despite what the right thinks and says about the left.
I am in complete agreement that it is necessary to get an atheist / humanist message out to a wider and more diverse audience, and the kind of sponsorship and support the American Humanist Association is offering is a terrific step (maybe several steps!) in that direction. Still, maybe I'm not getting it here, but mostly, it seems as though we're just talking about YouTube and podcast media here, and I think the scope needs to be wider than that.
I'm old school (74 years, crowding 75), and I still watch TV. I remember being thrilled when Ron Reagan's "not afraid of burning in hell" promo for the Freedom From Religion Foundation ad found its way to The Rachel Maddow Show, and positively STUNNED when CBS News 60 Minutes used it as well. If we're going to do this, we need to BROADCAST as well as narrow-cast.
And I hope that is being considered by those who support putting our message out there.
I am afraid your country is not ready for an Atheist/Humanist program, yet. France as a whole is more secular and there is still programs all Sundays morning on France 2 (a public channel) consecrated to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism. Maybe Orthodox too, but I don't watch TV. Notice what is absent of the list.
If AHA wants to reach late teens, then Youtube and social medias are definitely the road to go.
Regarding Millennials and GenZ (and what's next? Gen Alpha, is it?), absolutely you're right and no argument. Social media in its various forms is likely the best venue. Still, there are Boomers and GenXers out there who may be reached with more "traditional" media.
And I think that's worth a shot.
I came to deconversion largely through reading "The Friendly Atheist". I found my way here through a link in an article that had been reprinted on "Raw Story". I guess I am old school, since I am more of a reader than a viewer. FA changed my life, and I share it with as many people as I can.
I restack every column, even though I have a small reach, just like I do with Jessica Valenti's Abortion every day substack, these things should be common knowledge.
DM watched TV a lot but she also used streaming platforms, and watched YouTube. Like you, she adopted new technologies quite fast.
Worth a shot ? Definitely. But from my understanding, those who select what to (?) on majors channels are mostly on the conservative side. Either in your country or mine. So, the older audience who would need the most to see that wouldn't get access anyway.
From this generation X/Millennial (if those who created these groups could find a consensus on a fixed year, either 79 or 81, ça serait gentil, merci) 😝
Hey, those equipped to try it can be encouraged to do so. If it doesn't work, encourage them to try something else.
I can't see that standing still is much of an option.
I don't think there are any nationally broadcast religious shows any more (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS). Local affiliates might air religious programs on Sunday. Cable TV is another story. Dozens of stations (That I pay for, but never watch, grrrr.)
OT - I’m going to be away today because I am in a show tonight. I’m getting some rest right now but soon I’m going to be practicing a bit and then getting ready, dressed and make up. If you’re interested here’s some links, there one to watch the live stream/youtube which should be available 7:00pm central time.
https://cafecoda.club/events/kr-womens-theatre-presents-a-woman-scorned-loud-explicit
https://m.youtube.com/@cafecoda5628
Wish me break a leg.
VERY FAR OUT! Do "break a leg" ... and have a GREAT TIME!
Is there a circus equivalent to "Break a leg?"
Break a trunk?
Worse for those Siamese Elephants.
Thanks for the reminder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2OkR35ketA
One of the funniest scenes on TV ever.
Does your character have a broken leg? Otherwise, a broken leg might be counterproductive. : ) Good luck!
I’m in three different scenes, it’s a collection of scenes from multiple plays or single scenes rather than one play. I will be in another play like this in February as well, I will have two monologues and then some single lines in transitions for that one.
I also will be in a staged radio play of Its a Wonderful Life, so not a traditional play. That one I have four characters to play. Thankfully I will not have to memorize my lines, but I will have to change voices and stuff to be four different people. This will be in December.
OT:
Science comes through again, while religion continues to fail.
This 14-Year-Old Built an App That Detects Heart Diseases in Seconds
Siddarth Nandyala wants to put his tool in the hands of medical professionals so that they can catch cardiovascular abnormalities in their early stages
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/this-14-year-old-built-an-app-that-detects-heart-diseases-in-seconds-180986700/
Damn. Ninety-six percent accuracy is pretty damned impressive, and the fact that Ahmed appreciates that a cell phone isn't exactly a precision medical instrument. Further progress with his innovation will be VERY interesting to see!
Ironic with his name. May his app save many lives.
Here's an oldie-but-goodie about a young scientist
youtu.be/Vnib2gghvdE
This is good. Hopefully it will continue.
Fuck the RepubliScum.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6695d17432a8f37d3bd18618c927b7915b14401b3ba34244bcd355e41a3df78a.jpg
“𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎.”
Fixed that for you, JD Couchfucker Vance.
Recorded history shows who engaged in slaughtering indigenous men, women and children. It was the Christians from Europe.
And that is precisely what they want to ban the teaching of in public schools.,
Just saw this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vTO1pcH7h0M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_bruit_et_l%27odeur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
I’m researching a vacation trip to Arizona. Checking out the various ways to see the Grand Canyon when I noticed the GC Creation Tour. Yup, a 4 hour tour to learn all about creation. Ends with a prayer at sunset “with the One who created it”.
Do they allow questions?
Probably but I’d guess the answers never change regardless of the question
I should book one of those. Thoroughly study up on Canyon formation science and bring a prayer mat and ask which direction Mecca is.
It's an in-person appearance? How did they get the creator booking?
Gotta say, that's impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txzOIGulUIQ
Oh, yeah, I’d forgotten about that one. Too many to remember.
It’s hilarious that the creotards think naturalism and uniformitarianism are gotchas.
Wow. 13 years ago. I can't believe the video is that old (and I remembered it).
Eta: I didn't remember it, Bing did.
Beat me to it by 14 minutes. I should have got up earlier. 😁
🤮
This approach is essential. I love to read but many people watch videos or digital content. It's a different world and the methods used to reach the wider audience need to change with the times.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70e129cb313312dd324f65e40356381e810c15b5e99c3df6a20f2f9d37201e07.jpg
OHSHIT!
Martial Law incoming.
WARFIGHTERS!!!
Interesting this "pinned" bizzo. I was watching a talk on the movie Gettysburg, given by a professor who was wearing a T-shirt with various signs on it and some small writing underneath them. And some guy said something like the last thing I need is to watch a a professor talk about Gettysburg with an 'inclusion' T-shirt on. People then gleefully pointed out that it was in fact a Gettysburg T-shirt and the symbols were the badges of the regiments involved or something. And the professor equally gleefully said "This is gonna be pinned!" So that guy is going to be embarrassed forever. :)
Good.
OT: In news that incites rage and despair (and maybe even thoughts of razors and wrists) A recent poll in NJ suggests the Couchfucker is only 1 point behind Newsome in a hypothetical POTUS race. The poll is by SoCal and the story in Newsweek.
While I tend to agree that 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 is better than more MAGAt madness, and on that basis alone the results should show way more than just a single-point lead... Newsom really shouldn't be a serious contender. There should be much more pushback against his ambitions from the left. His media team, I will concede, has played a very good meme game online, but... politically, he's just another slice of stale Wonderbread, and he's already shown an uncomfortable willingness to throw marginalized people under the bus to score Centrism Points.
That may well be 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 enough, on the heels of an even more chaotic second Trump term, but... four more years down the line we'll be right back in it again, with another howling fascist lunatic shitting all over everything, because our electorate has the memory of a dead goldfish. We need someone who has more going for them than "I'm Not Trump" to win not only 2028, but 2032 as well, and Newsom is just 𝘯𝘰𝘵 that guy.
I'll vote for the sonofabitch if he wins the ticket, because I believe in ruthless pragmatism in general elections- what other choice do we have, at this point?- but he is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 getting my primary vote, and he shouldn't be getting anyone else's, either.
But who else? Unfortunately, it's got to be a man. Beto? Bernie? Not much good for 2032 most likely. Not that I wouldn't love Warren, but this country would rather have a tiny mushroom than a vagina.
This question also must be asked: How many votes are we already losing because the left is fed up with crusty old white men, and how does that compare with the number of votes we'd lose 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 crusty old white men not wanting to vote for a candidate without a cock? Harris came close. 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘺 damned close- and she took over the ticket 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 late in the race, so she had precious little time to 𝘨𝘦𝘵 so close. I suspect the perception that the DNC was playing cynical games with the ticket, and the votes already lost because the party chose to try to run Biden again in the first place- combining to present the appearance of a party lacking confidence in its own candidates- had more of an influence on the outcome than Harris being an 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘦 instead of an 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦.
But I suppose we'll have to see how progressives, and especially progressive women, fare in this year's and next year's elections. 𝘐𝘧, that is, elections continue to have any meaning at the federal level. Insert standard disclaimer about fascism and the imminent death of democracy here.
I'd like to think we're ready but two women lost against Trump, of all people. And in both cases polls showed the women ahead. But Trump lost to YAOWG.
Clinton was the target of a decades-long smear campaign by Republicans costing her votes from the center, and also had the baggage of her hawkish politics (among other things) costing her votes from the left- and she 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 took the popular vote, Electoral College be damned. Harris had a late, rocky start thanks to a boss who didn't know when to quit, and she 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 managed to almost completely turn things around, over the incompetence of party leadership, in the handful of months she actually got to lead the campaign for. If Clinton had made even a little bit of leftward shift to placate the protest voters who snubbed her over beating Sanders in the primary, or if Biden had thrown in the towel 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 that shitshow of a debate... I think we could've had 𝘵𝘸𝘰 women in the office by now. The polls showed each of them leading for a reason; anything within a few percentage points is close enough for 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 woman to have won if any number of factors, both within and beyond the control of their respective campaigns, had been even slightly different.
Again... I guess we'll see. But I have a hunch that progressives are going to fare rather better than center-right establishment Democrats, in the coming days- and that it won't make as much of a difference as most folks think what sort of hardware they've got between their thighs.
All that, and... well, Trump remains an anomaly. He's weathered 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘴 of scandals that would have outright ended any other person's career in politics- and, indeed, similar scandals have brought down multiple other politicians (one of whom he just recently pardoned) since he oozed his way down that stupid escalator; 𝘩𝘦 just seems to be exempt from the same pratfalls that would ruin other people in the same circumstances.
I think I'd put that down to the PR team he brought over from his previous career as a serial bankrupter of businesses. Even back then, he kept managing to somehow turd-polish his failures- even 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 he had Fox News on retainer to do it 24/7 on national TV. His entire personal history was just one spectacular failure after another, but through it all his name, his 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, was synonymous with success- if not at playing the game, then at least at flaunting the rules with impunity. I don't think any other Democrat would've had a better chance than Clinton or Harris did, against 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 kind of personality cult, and I think Biden only won because Trump's mismanagement of COVID was a 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 issue as of the 2020 election, rather than one he'd had a few years to slither his way out from under (as he 𝘩𝘢𝘥 done by 2024).
I'd vote for Harris again (if she is the nominee). Maybe AOC as vice.
So would I, though of the likely female candidates, I'd probably choose Warren over Harris in the primary.
Me too, maybe. I might have to play the ageism card though. For some reason, I'm a little leery of older candidates.
I like Buttigieg, although I don't know if he would run.
Tim Walz ? White and he will be in his early to mid 60's in 2028.
I think though that Newsome would be a better campaigner than CF. He shown a bit of talent at trolling trumpet – or rather his flunkies have perhaps. The other guy is as dull as ditch water.
I don’t trust polls.
I don't trust Newsome. Although a corporate Democrat seems to be a shoo – in to become the next presidential candidate.
I’d trust Freddy Krueger over any Republican.
Since 2016, neither do I, OTOH most of the research seems to point to an under-counting of conservative voters, and two, we are talking about two white penises and a large number of Americans apparently consider a penis a job requirement.
It's not only in your country. Though sexism saved us twice from having la peine as president.
Well, both England and Germany have overcome it at least once. It periodically gives me hope.
African and Asian countries where women rights are not a priority beat us to it.
And NZ?
Polish folk are just as trustworthy as anyone else. ; )
10 ft. or otherwise.