Why Using The “Definitional Atheism” Argument Is Harmful

Let me start by stating that “Atheism isn’t a philosophy, it simply means that we don’t believe in god” isn’t wrong.  It’s accurate on a definitional level (defenders call it “definitional atheism”).  But, I think using it as an argument is harmful for the below two reasons.

When Used to Discredit Fellow Atheists

The first way that using this argument is harmful is when it’s used against fellow atheists.  Atheist A says “Atheists shouldn’t poop in other people’s cereal bowls! Atheism should be against pooping in other people’s cereal bowls!” on the Internet, and it’s almost a given that Atheist B will pop up and say “But, Atheism isn’t a philosophy, it simply means that we don’t believe in god, therefore Atheism can’t be against pooping in other people’s cereal bowls”.  Apologies for the immature example; it usually involves denying women rights or deifying capitalistic greed.  Atheist B, by stating this, is trying to burn down any evolution of what it means to be atheist, what atheism stands for, because apparently they’re incapable of having an actual discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of “pooping in other people’s cereal bowls”.  Of course, whether consciously or not, this type of well poisoning, this squashing of discourse, results in maintaining the status quo.  If you like the status quo, then defend the status quo.  Explain why you think this “pooping in other people’s cereal bowls” is something that should be maintained.

When Used to Explain Why Some Atheists Do Bad Things

The second way that using this argument is harmful is when it’s used to explain why an Atheist, or group of Atheists, could do something horrible.  Theist says to Atheist A that “Atheism is bad because Atheist B did something horrible”.  If you respond back with the definitional atheism argument, then you’ve just conceded the point to the Theist that Atheists can be horrible.  A much better response is to just flip their statement “Theism is bad because Theist B did something horrible”.  Any group of people of sufficient size is going to have some people that do horrible things, regardless of which group they belong to.  But, any self-respecting group wouldn’t publicize say that the nature of their group is such that they have to accommodate people who do horrible things, because definitions.

If Atheism is to become a respectable descriptor, you staunch definitional atheists need to stop scuttling the ship.  In fact, I think if you do either of the above, I’m going to call you out.

Definitional Atheist – An atheist who whines when somebody tries to attach human decency to Atheism.

Goddammit Obama

Couple of critiques from a godless liberal:

1. We have the NSA spying on everybody, but we can't run a online store for health insurance?  Stop spying on Americans and reform the NSA to make the online world more secure and safe. Pardon Manning and Snowden and stand for liberty.
2. Drones are providing a real, deadly, boogieman to the very folks we need on our side to stop terrorists.  Stop dropping bombs on wedding party caravans.  Murdering a whole family to get a top terrorist is immoral.

Neither of the above two things are good for you politically (right, middle, or left) nor are they good for anyone in real life.  This "Because Safety" is authoritarian argument would be endorsed by Goebbels.

Why Libertarians and Tea Partiers are Wrong

1. We live in a society with other people.

2. We are neighbors.

3. We share a planet.

4. The Golden Rule.

5. You have a brain and its not a decorative organ.

Please stop shoving your "small government" into women's private parts and stop ruining my country.

That is all.

Why I'm Pro-Choice

Let me start out by saying that I'm completely pro-choice.  The reason for this post isn't to pontificate about my personal "oughts" on the subject, but rather to lay out why I'm pro-choice.  This is hopefully lightly written, but the subject itself requires a warning that you might not want to read further if you're sensitive (I don't like reading about this stuff myself sometimes).

1. Bodily Autonomy

A body is a body, and is owned by a person who is an emergent property of that body.  Other bodies can't use your body without your consent, full stop.  The rest of the below reasons aren't really needed, since this one is all you need.  If you disagree, the authorities will be by shortly to remove one of your eyes and one of your kidneys (c'mon, you'll still have one good one and somebody who needs one will get it).

2. Biology is Messy

Not messy in the "yuck" way, but in the way that every physical body is different and that no two situations are ever completely the same.  Any attempt at legislating specific bounds to abortion is just going to complicate, confuse and ultimately restrict the patient-doctor options.  Medical decisions should be made only between the doctor and the patient.

3. Sex != Babies

Sure, sex can result in babies (insert naturalistic fallacy here), but babies are not a necessary result of sex.  If you think it is, then you need start legislating baby quotas based on copulation rates.  Until then, sex is for more than just for making babies.  If you're not having sex to make a baby, you aren't required to have that baby should you get pregnant.

4. Reproductive Control

People who want to have babies, now or later, also need to have the choice.  I'm talking about people who responsibly use birth control prophylactics for the purposes of #3 above.  I'm talking about people who are actively trying to get pregnant and run into the reality of #2 above.  Even if you're doing everything right, you might find yourself in the situation where you will need to choose.

5. Nasty Crap

Until the world is a perfect place for women, a world where there is absolutely no sexual violation, there should be no restriction on abortion.  The anti-choice mob like to mock and minimize these situations, but as much as they try, these situations are real and do happen.  The last thing that women in these situations need is a bureaucratic and legal jungle between themselves, their doctor and their choice.

Obviously, Levin's friends in the military are more important than women

From Dan Friedman at the NY Daily News:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) plans to replace a measure from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and others that would take prosecution of sexual assault out of the military chain of command with an alternative provision, a step that represents a death knell for the New York Democrat's bill.
Gillibrand declined to comment Tuesday on Levin's plan. But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who joined the New York Democrat to consponsor the bill creating a separate convening authority for sexual assault, blasted Levin's move.
"I am stunned that when it comes to prosecuting these crimes the committee is largely embracing the status quo by allowing commanders to not only decide whether a case goes forward, but even to handpick the jury that will render the verdict," Boxer said in a statement.
Boxer said the U.S. should "emulate our allies in Israel, Great Britain, Australia and Canada" who review sexual assault outside the chain of command.

Yes, Mr. Levin, the kangaroo, victim silencing, anti-woman prosecution system the military has right now is doing a good job.  Did you give your good ol' boy, brass wearing buddies a pat on the butt after replacing this measure like Chad Johnson did in court the other day?  Shame on you Mr. Levin!  Shame on you for not joining Gillibrand and Boxer in actually doing something to make the military a better place for women.