Comments on: Do atheists have a sexual harassment problem?

By: Taquoshi

Taquoshi — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:38:08 +0000

Actually, your points make a lot of sense. The reason I tried to take out the word "atheist" is to kind of functionally remove the automatic assumption that "godly" or "religious" people would have a higher moral standard. People who are not "religious" or "godly" often do have moral standards, although one could point out that those standards could be argued down by someone clever enough. I just wonder how the morality would differ from a summit gathering of oh, let's say, The Knights of Columbus versus the Car Collectors of America.

Actually, as a Christian, I find the whole concept of an atheist summit absolutely baffling. Okay, they don't believe in God or gods or supernatural powers or the Force or what have you. Now what? Talking about how stupid the Pentecostals are or the Mormons pales after awhile. The reason we attend church is because we have a commonality with other believers (and it is mandated by Scripture, but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

I can't fathom why people would gather because they DON'T believe in something they can't change. Granted, I personally don't believe in Obamacare, but I can implement political change that would hopefully lead to legislative change. While anarchists don't believe in government and actively do work against it, the OWS crowd has no clear focus and appears to be just a collection of drifters. And for the anarchists and OWSers, I have the same question, I would for the atheists, which is "What are you going to replace [cause du jour] with?"

By: The Watchman

The Watchman — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:12:06 +0000

Although your points are good and certainly well taken, the subject of the article was regarding the "Atheist Convention".Of course, there are events that will attract the run of the mill male chauvinist.I would venture to say that men with good moral upbringing probably wouldn't be the chauvinist.On the other hand, men who make it a habit to sexually harass women may just assume that in, or at, an event targeted toward Atheists, they might find women of lower standards.I am not saying that female or males who are Atheistic have a lower standard regarding their sexual prowess, but may only be perceived to have lower standards, by those who do prey on women.Does that make any sense?Either way, it makes to me.

By: Taquoshi

Taquoshi — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:24:55 +0000

Okay, so there was some sexual harassment.

Let me ask this, would it have been any different if the gathering was for the National Dentist Association, the National Association of Grocery Store Clerks or Pet Groomers of America (I don't know if these groups even exist – just chose some ideas at random – no reflection on anyone)?

The other question I have is how much might be influenced by the location – i.e. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?

I guess what I am asking here is whether the reported actions of the "men" in this particular group is any different than any other group of "men" in any non-religious group. I am in no way defending inappropriate behavior, but I am also not inclined to ascribe all inappropriate behavior to the fact that the reason for the group meetings was to discuss atheism. I would imagine that any large grouping of people, such as those who might attend a State Fair or a major football playoff, would contain those men who would sexually harass a woman regardless of whether or not the men were atheists.

By: handgunnar

handgunnar — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:24:14 +0000

Right. That explains why you know so much about it. Maybe you ought to turn yourself in.

By: Bud

Bud — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:30:54 +0000

What would you expect from a convention of Aetheists. They will not answer to any moral authority other than the local police. Who would be naive enough to think that any moral code there might be in force? Would any non-prosituted woman attend an aetheist convention, without some kind of protection?

By: dntmkmecomoverther

dntmkmecomoverther — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:44:06 +0000

Ok. Slavery was considered ‘good’ at one time…why? Now it’s not….why not? (I’m not advocating for slavery I am simply wanting to know how you account for morality in a naturalistic worldview)Killing babies has been considered by some groups to be ‘good’ and some ‘groups’ to be ‘bad’ over the time period you mention. Who is correct? Why?If we evolved from nothing, to what we are now; how do you account for being able to differentiate between Good or Bad, moral or immoral given that survival was the key to success in the evolutionary model? Whatever the ‘group’ must do to survive is by our statement considered ‘good’…does that preclude any actions? Many animals steal, hurt, kill and eat each other in the struggle to survive…what would be wrong with us doing that given your belief of origins? What makes us any different than the animals given your worldview? (other than we can type and use the internet?)

By: JWDixon66

JWDixon66 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:28:28 +0000

Good actions benefit the group. Bad actions hurt the group. It is not a specific group. It is activities that impacted human societies over ten of thousands of years.

By: JWDixon66

JWDixon66 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:26:20 +0000

Ahem, Satan rebelled in heaven. There can be such problems there as well, according to your mythology.

By: MexseikoMexseiko

MexseikoMexseiko — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:18:17 +0000

Atheists sexual harrassment problem? Who cares? Ms. Watson opted out of TAM, perhaps fearing SH, but the word she used aw safety, which is more related to physical harm, perhaps rape?

Either way, who cares about whether Atheists are concerned or not about sexual harassment. Laws apply to everyone.

There are no such problems in heaven or hell. Once there, Atheists have a bigger fish to fry.