Unreason and lack of understanding by Be Scofield

 Yesterday Be Scofield wrote an article attacking atheists for four points: 1) that atheists claim religion is harmful, 2) that atheist attempt to convert the religious, 3) that atheism is cultural imperialism, and 4) that conversion attempts are racist.  Rather than trying to make a reasoned analyses he simply uses a number of rhetorical tricks to avoid the complexity of the issue.

Skeptical Sexism

In this post I want to join the debate regarding sexism in the skeptical (and nerd) communities.  This has been an ongoing debate within these communities and for good reason.  There really is a problem with sexism and the debate keeps getting made worse by poor arguments and misreadings of other people's arguments (here's looking at you Dawkins).  I think these problems could be largely eliminated if people would try to remove emotion from their responses (which puts people on the defensive) and if the framing of the issues took on a more neutral stance.

What I want to do in this post is address the problems I have, as a male, with the presentation of arguments against sexism.  While I may agree with most arguments put forward on the side fighting sexism I often find myself initially turned away by the presentation.  I can understand why men are defensive to these arguments, because when I read them my first inclination is to feel attacked and go on the defensive.  You might argue that I am being sensitive and you are right.  But, I think its important to remember that if you are trying to convince a specific audience, then you should address your point to that audience...


If I am trying to show a believer in poltergeists that the coffee cup falling off the table is better explained by other phenomena and I start off saying those who believe in poltergeists are idiots, well then I probably won't make much progress.  But if I step back and frame the issue in a way that the believer understands (such as asking how do you know it was a ghost and not an alien, gnomes, or elves) then I am likely to make more progress.

I want to address a number of ways sexism is framed that I think are unproductive and could be better done, but because of the extent of each topic I will limit myself to one of the following topics per day

1.  Privilege: stop using the word privilege, you might be using the word correctly but it is likely to turn a lot of men away.
2.  Marketing:  Marketing targeted at men isn't sexist, its just marketing, but it may have sexist effects.
3.  Rude & Inappropriate Behavior: I totally agree, there is way too much rude & inappropriate behavior by men toward women, but just because it is rude or inappropriate doesn't mean its sexist.
4.  Gender Stereotypes Aren't Always Bad: I hate to say it, but even though you might think gender stereotypes are bad, doesn't mean everyone agrees or that they are.

Mary Kochan doesn't understand constitutional law...

Today I want to provide a quick law lesson for Mary Kochan who recently wrote an article on the website Catholic lane.  Unfortunately, Ms. Kochan’s doesn’t understand constitutional law and thus she has wasted her time writing an article based on her misinterpretation of a lawsuit.  The article is entitled You Whiny Sniveling Little Atheists Are Pathetic a fairly provocative article I would say.

The problem?  Kochan's basis for this title is a flawed understanding of a lawsuit and constitutional law. So in the end her whole article makes her look foolish to someone who understands the law.  This is a good lesson anyone can learn from—make sure you understand the opponents argument before you criticize, otherwise you are the one who looks foolish.

So let’s begin with a little constitutional law lesson (I know not the most exciting subject, but necessary knoweldge)…