Until you told me it was a bad idea, I thought it was a good idea. I'm coming back around now to thinking this book is a great idea. The damage done by religion should be shown and seen . . . and I think the concept of this book does so in a way that allows people to 'feel' the horror that religion is actually.
A lot of atheists came to his defense because a lot of atheists, like a lot of people of faith, are idiots.
@1 agree wholeheartedly!
Many people consider atheism just another religion or a movement. This is not true. Calling on atheists to police other atheists is sort of odd. The only thing atheists have in common is their non-believe in a god or gods.
Anyone who supports a project on Kickstarter is an idiot.
The simile of religion and abusive relationships is not lost on me.
Gods can't be abusive boyfriends because there are no gods. Gods are better represented as evil voices in your head.
If I had kids who were sniffing around religion, showing some interest, I'd buy that book to give them a "fair and balanced" opposite point of view. I don't have a problem with it at all. I am kind of an obnoxious atheist though.
I don't think it makes light of abuse. I think most people are in denial about the abusive nature of a great deal of religious practice. Religions are just cults that have lasted long enough. Telling YOUNG children they will BURN FOREVER if they are bad. If they even THINK BAD THOUGHTS. How is that not child abuse?
It's fair to call on us to police ourselves, but the reason this book was cancelled was because a bunch of atheists called out how stupid it was. We self-censored, and were successful.
The loudest critics of this Kickstarter were atheist bloggers. While there were some telling him it was a good idea, I'm glad he was willing to listen seriously to his critics within the atheist movement.
When atheists have the power and the numbers that organized religions do, then I'll worry about whether or not they're policing themselves. You religionists have yet to stick to your part of that deal, after all.
Tend to agree with cocktailer. Asking atheists to police each other is odd. I know there are some atheist support structures out there, but it is not like being a member of a religion where community membership is basically a requirement. Also, not convinced that this was a horrible idea or that it makes light of abuse. The examples presented are real warning signs of an abusive relationship, and it should be obvious to any Stranger reader or writer that a relationship with your church/religion has a HIGH potential for abuse using the same methods used in romantic relationships (*cough* Mars Hill *cough*cough*). Based on the video provided here in the article, I'm not seeing why this book wouldn't have potentially made young people more aware of the dangers of abuse from both romantic partners and asserted spiritual leaders.
atheists need to do a better job of policing themselves too

Jeebus. It's like you don't even know what an atheist IS.

Atheists are not a religion, organization, political party, or even a movement. It's a very broad philosophy held, loosely, by all sort of different individuals all over the world. You don't need board approval, take a test, or need a card or some shit to join. You don't join at all.

Telling atheists they need to police other atheists is as fucking stupid as telling all existentialists to police other existentialists.

Not policing people is one of the chief fucking attractions.
Other groups that police themselves better: the gluten-intolerant, cat owners, people that don't completely hate Counting Crows, people that have never read the Harry Potter books.
Hemant Mehta is a very prominent blogger in the atheist movement. He is a board member of Foundation Beyond Belief and has been on the board of Secular Student Alliance. It is *completely* appropriate for Paul to call on people to police bloggers like Hemant. And that is *exactly* what happened.
Just because you're an asshole doesn't mean you're wrong.
@16 He didn't call on PEOPLE. He called on atheists, generally — as if there even exists some a monolithic entity even known as "atheists."

And no. That's not "appropriate." It's fucking stupid. If the organizations Mehta belongs to reigned him in because he represents them - that's one thing.

But he doesn't represent atheists in general — because there is no such thing — and atheists have zero obligation to correct or coerce any other atheist.
Calling on atheists to police each other is like calling on anybody who doesn't comment on SLOG to police each other.
I'm never considered myself an "atheist" since I refuse to define myself by what I don't believe in. I prefer to think myself as grounded in reality.
Fucking proselytizers need to gag themselves.
Doesn't the hyper sensitivity every get a little old? Given the historical abuses of every major religion, I think the title almost trivializes the evils of organized religion by comparing it to domestic violence. Abusive boyfriend? Try murderous tyrant. And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't particularly care if someone believes in God, and openly admits that religion has also inspired good acts.
An omniscient, omnipotent God is much worse than an abusive boyfriend. If anything, the metaphor minimizes the grotesque absurdity of that brand of theology.
As far as "traditional publishing generally working to make sure authors don't humiliate themselves," there are simply too many examples of authors doing exactly that with traditional publishing.

Constant's reflexive bias against self-publishing is simply another type of faith.
I like that.
Louis CK does a great "God is like a shitty girlfriend" bit.
Slog makes me confused. A few threads down, to the cheers of the peanut gallery, it comically lays into a couple of real people who fell to a horrible death in front of their children. But here it clucks it's tongue at the "insensitivity" of a comedic satire in which no one's actually hurt. My guess is that Slog doesn't actually give a fuck about but rather grandstands on whatever makes it appear to.
Some times the truth is offensive. Deal with it.
@27- Or maybe, just maybe, there are a diversity of people on Slog and the ones inclined to watch a video of people accidentally killing themselves aren't the most sensitive ones and some Slog users, upon reading the headline for such a video simply said "Well that sucks." and didn't depress themselves by watching it happen or reading what other people had to say about it.
I can easily find correlations between Religion and Domestic Violence when I look at the classic DV Circle of Power:

Threats, Coercion, Male Privilege, Intimidation, Minimize and Deny, Isolation, Honeymoon Phase, Using Children, Emotional, and Economic abuses.

I can easily find correlations between Religion and Domestic Violence when I look at the classic DV Circle of Power:
Threats, Coercion, Male Privilege, Intimidation, Minimize and Deny, Isolation, Honeymoon Phase, Using Children, Emotional, and Economic abuses.

Speaking as an actual survivor of domestic violence (as in the, genuine fear for my life, my abuser went to jail for what he did to me, I skipped town when I found out he was getting out of jail, type of abuse), I don't mind the comparison at all, actually, although I might not have read the book simply because of the imagery. I actually just heard about this now, and the other day I compared God to an abuser (although what I said was, "If I treated my children the way God treated His, they'd haul me away for child abuse," which is, I admit, not exactly the same).

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.