Atheist Announcements

TBAT has two major announcements on this subject:

1. The round table will be published on February 8 2012. We hope that we will be able to agree final drafts of all the pieces submitted by then; however, if a piece is still not in a version that both the author and TBAT can agree on, it will have to be omitted. We hope to include everything, but at this stage, getting it published in a version that represents at least most of the authors is the priority. Authors who could not agree with TBAT on a final version will be, of course, welcome to add their comments to the thread. If they do and people feel they were left out unfairly, TBAT reserves the right to explain what the disagreements were; obviously we won't quote any private correspondence should we need to make such an explanation.



2. As most of us know, an Atheist 101 was requested some time ago and we've been working on it for ages. However, while it's been referred to on and off as 'the atheist 101', we've been planning to call it an atheist round table rather than a 101, because we felt '101' wasn't quite accurate: there are so many different ways of being an atheist that a 101 on the subject would be practically impossible. How do you do a 101 without overgeneralising to the point that some atheists end up getting excluded from something that's supposed to speak for them? Well, lately we were struck by Nick Kiddle's comment^[1] which talked about this very problem: there are certain myths circulating about atheists, many of them hostile, and atheist activists have been taking steps to correct and debunk them. However, those debunkings can be a problem in themselves when they're too sweeping; in trying to refute the basic misconception that atheists are all miserable rotten people, one can sometimes risk sounding as if unhappy atheists, or atheists with mixed feelings, or even just atheists who disagree with other atheists, aren't 'proper atheists'.

So, we now have a 101 idea:

Atheist Myths 101: It's More Complicated Than That

The structure will be this:

Introduction:

In cultures where atheism is a minority position, there are often misconceptions about what atheists are actually like - and if atheists are a mistrusted minority, those misconceptions are often rather hostile to boot. Atheist activists are attempting to debunk these myths, quite rightly; however, when trying to debunk a hostile myth it can be easy to go too far in the other direction and end up oversimplifying things in a way that makes other atheists feel excluded. In the spirit of our motto, we'd like to promote an understanding of the debunked myths about atheism that's rather more complicated than that.

We will then list common myths about atheists or atheism, the common refutation to them, followed by a longer and More Complicated Than That discussion of the issue.

For example:

Myth:

Atheists believe in a hostile and meaningless universe.

Oversimplified response:

No, atheists simply locate meaning in non-divine interpretations of the universe.

More Complicated Than That response:

Atheism as a philosophical position doesn't necessarily imply a meaningless or hostile universe. Concepts like 'meaning' and 'hostile' are very much dependent on personal interpretation: what one person finds meaningful, another finds meaningless, and there's no absolute scale of 'hostile' or 'not-hostile' to measure things against. Some atheists consider the material universe to be meaningful in itself. Some atheists aren't particularly bothered about the nature of the universe and find meaning in other things. Some atheists do think it's a hostile and meaningless universe. Of those, some think that this is no reason not to enjoy life and create our own meaning while we're here. Others find life hard - atheists are just as prone to depression as anyone else - but simply don't believe in any deities even if they wish they could. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities; this can co-exist with a wide variety of beliefs about what kind of universe this is.

In the interests of preserving the privacy of atheists who would suffer from being 'outed' in their communities, the piece will handled in the same communal way as with the Depression 101. This means:

1. It will be credited thus: 'Co-authored by the Slacktiverse community.'
2. Suggestions and additions should be e-mailed to slackmods@gmail.com, who will edit and compile them.
3. Copyright will be public domain.

So if anyone wants to write a piece on atheism that they can sign their name to and retain copyright, best to write a solo piece and send it to us for publication separately.

Everyone who sends in a suggestion, addition or contribution to the Atheism 101 and anyone who emails TBAT indicating their interest in the project (including beta reading) will be sent (by return email) a link to the location of the working draft.

---

^[1] The other thing that really bothers me is when people make pronouncements like "atheists don't see the universe as bleak and hostile". I know they mean that there is nothing inherent in atheism that would make you see the universe that way, but the way it comes across is always that atheists are all above such things. And I'm very much not. I do see the universe as bleak and hostile because of my history and my mental state. And I feel like I'm not welcome among atheists because I make the movement look untidy and give religious fundamentalists a weak point to attack. [The Problem of Proselytizing, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:40 AM]↩

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I'm looking forward to both of these. The "More Complicated than That" one looks like a wonderful idea!

TRiG.

[Nenya]

Really looking forward to this one as well! A good use of our community motto, I feel. :D

[Lonespark]

Gosh.
Now I feel like we should have a "Paganism is More Complicated Than That" special. Full of cultural appropriation and post-colonialism and history vs. myth and sacrifice and paid clergy and and and...

[Lonespark]

Atheist Roundtable, Yay! I can't wait!

[romulusnr]

Atheist 101:

We don't believe there is a God.

Question time:

Q: What about--
A: No.
Q: So what happens when--
A: Nothing.
Q: Don't you think that--
A: No.
Q: So how does--
A: Not sure, but we're working on it.
Q: How do you live like this?
A: Perfectly well, thanks.

[romulusnr]

@Lonespark: For that matter, they ought to have a "Christianity: It's More Complicated Than That." Could go on for days! Weeks! Years!

[hapax]

I would love to have followup "More Complicated Than That" on Paganism, or any other topic, really.

(Would anybody be interested in a "Subject Headings: It's More Complicated Than That"? I've only got ten or so pages off the top of my head)

[WingedBeast]

Is anybody really not as complicated as that?

"Navii, we really are that simple."

[no]

How did this happen? I used to love slacktivist back when the og slacktivist dude did it. Now seems like 2/3s of the posts are about atheism, a topic I'm not interested in and one I don't recall the OG slacktivist posting that much on at all. Oh well everything always ends up sucking.

[The Board Administration Team]

Now seems like 2/3s of the posts are about atheism,a topic I'm not interested in and one I don't recall the OG slacktivist posting that much on at all. Oh well everything always ends up sucking.

Well, it has been a year since the OG (Fred Clark) moved on to a different platform -- one which you can find on the top of the sidebar (Slacktivist at Patheos.com.)

One person's "sucking" is another person's "board that is open to a broad range of viewpoints."

[Ruby]

no: How did this happen? I used to love slacktivist back when the og slacktivist dude did it. Now seems like 2/3s of the posts are about atheism, a topic I'm not interested in and one I don't recall the OG slacktivist posting that much on at all. Oh well everything always ends up sucking.

Guess you've been absent for the large number of posts on Paganism and the Paganism 101, eh, buddy?

[storiteller]

How did this happen? I used to love slacktivist back when the og slacktivist dude did it. Now seems like 2/3s of the posts are about atheism, a topic I'm not interested in and one I don't recall the OG slacktivist posting that much on at all. Oh well everything always ends up sucking.

FYI, if you would like to have posts on different topics, you are free to write one! Also, the Blogaround features links to all of the different posts that Slacktiverse members have written over the last week. There's probably something that could interest you there, including a number of very good deconstructions similar to the ones Fred (the OG Slacktivist) still continues on Left Behind on his new site.

Or you could just complain, too.

[Nenya]

At least we still manage to break the italics on rare occasions! :D

I think we're doing pretty damn well as a community blog. When's our first anniversary as The Slacktiverse, anyway? (Wow, has it really been that long?)

[Mmy]

@Nenya: When's our first anniversary as The Slacktiverse, anyway? (Wow, has it really been that long?)

Fred's last TypePad/Slacktivist post here on March 3 2011 and TBAT published our first post We are still open while undergoing some modifications on March 9 2011.

For me it seems like both a long time ago and yesterday.

And yes, it has functioned as a truly community blog hasn't it?

[Kit Whitfield]

Now I feel like we should have a "Paganism is More Complicated Than That" special. Full of cultural appropriation and post-colonialism and history vs. myth and sacrifice and paid clergy and and and...

How I would love to see this. Can we get some volunteers?

[Slow Learner]

I have a question that's been niggling at me.

What is the meaning of this term '101', for a basic introduction? Because the only resonance the number one hundred and one has for me is as a room number in 1984, and I don't think that's the intention...

Also, +1 vote for a Paganism is More Complicated Than That.

[Kirala]

What is the meaning of this term '101', for a basic introduction?

Many universities use the 101 course as the introductory level for any given subject - perhaps someone else will have some clue as to why they start that high up.

[Anonymous]

101 is an american only term. Most universities in the rest of the world use a different system. I don't think our classes had meaningful numbers at all, we just called the classes by their names. Some of our classes had prerequisites which we had to take first. The course catalogue had numbers, but they seemed to be sorted alphabetically.

Americans like to use numbers instead of words. They have a word like four-one-one or something like that which means information and four-ten which means "okay." and seven-eleven means a small shop. They call dates by numbers as well. They also don't pronounce three digits numbers as "seven hundred eleven" they just say seven eleven, but four one one not four eleven. They don't use the word "hundred" until a number is four digits long, and then instead of using the word thousand, they say eleven hundred, twelve hundred, thirteen hundred. They don't say hundred hundred, though, they say ten thousand.

I find this interesting.

[Ben]

Since you saw fit to publish an article claiming that persuading someone to abandon their religious beliefs is "evil in one of its purest forms", I hope you will put an atheism trigger warning in front of all articles that explain or advocate atheism. After all, exposure to those articles might cause someone to abandon their religious beliefs, and, as Froborr so convincingly argued, that's evil! One of the purest forms of evil there is, right up there with infanticide and genocide.

Maybe you should not mention atheism at all, just to be safe.

[Mmy]

@Ben: Wow, you really do like the passive aggressive tone don't you?

Given your previous comment on trigger warnings:

This place really reminds me of a specialist Livejournal community now. I mean, like a furry bible slash community. It's something about the 1:1 ratio of trigger warnings and prevarication to actual writing.

I really have little interest in your opinions about when we do/do not or should / should not use trigger warnings.

[Lonespark]

Re: Americans and numbers:

Don't forget 9-11. Not to be confused with 9-1-1.

[Ben]

I wasn't making fun of trigger warnings (although the use of a trigger warning for "transhumanism" *is* pretty hilarious), I was making fun of that ridiculous article that says convincing someone to change or abandon their religion is "evil in its purest form", and sneakily implies that that is especially relevant to atheist proselytism.

So a bit of passive-aggressive snark means you can disregard my opinion, but apparently labelling atheist advocacy "evil in its purest form" is somehow reasonable discourse?

[Mmy]

@Ben: I wasn't making fun of trigger warnings (although the use of a trigger warning for "transhumanism" *is* pretty hilarious)

1) Since you were around at the time of the original discussion about the use of that trigger warning you should remember that only one of our community writes in that genre and zie agreed on the use of the trigger.

2) The fact that you find a particular trigger warning hilarious tells me much about you and little about the trigger warning. I know of people who think that trigger warnings for rape are hilarious. I know of people who think that trigger warnings for animal abuse are hilarious. Again -- that tells me much about the people and nothing about triggers.

3) If you bothered to read the many comments attached to the "evil in purest form" article you would know that we as a community have been discussing it. And even the people who most objected to the article's logic didn't feel it needed a trigger warning. Your comment today seems more of a drive-by than an attempt to enter into a reasonable debate.

4) So a bit of passive-aggressive snark means you can disregard my opinion No, I wasn't disregarding your comment because of a "bit of passive-aggressive snark" but rather because your last comment on trigger warnings made it clear that you disrespected and devalued the nature of our community.

[Ruby, on the go]

Interesting as a Paganism: More Complicated Than That sounds, it does raise the question of why there was a Paganism 101. Is there only one way to be pagan?

[Ben]

If Froborr (and the people agreeing with him in the comments to that article) really believed what he was saying, he would definitely want a trigger warning on any articles which might 'force' someone to go through the painful experience of changing their religious worldview. Which I guess is pretty much all articles on this site.

I mean, Fred Clark points out the problems with particular types of religious worldview all the time! What if somebody read his genius dissection of the Left Behind novels and it caused them to lose faith in millennial fundamentalist Christianity? That would be a very painful experience. And not even a 'triggering' reminder of a painful experience, it would actually be the original painful experience. It's as if, instead of requiring a trigger warning for rape, an article could actually rape you! Truly, evil in its purest form.

I do respect and understand the need for trigger warnings to stop people having painful experiences. So, out of respect for Froborr's position that persuasion around religious topics is evil, you should really put trigger warnings on any article that takes a position on any religious subject.

[Allie]

Americans like to use numbers instead of words. [...] They don't use the word "hundred" until a number is four digits long, and then instead of using the word thousand, they say eleven hundred, twelve hundred, thirteen hundred.

Overgeneralizing much?

And in way of explanation: "Four-one-one" is in reference to a phone number that one can call for, well, information, a parallel to the "nine-one-one" emergency number - pronounced not as hundreds numbers but as the sequence of key-presses on the telephone. "Ten-four" comes from a system of radio codes used by law enforcement and truckers. "Seven-Eleven" refers to a specific chain of convenience stores that are so named because their original hours of operation were 7 (am) to 11 (pm) - it's not a shorthand for 711 (seven-hundred-eleven), it's how one reads the company name rendered as "7-11".

[Mmy]

@Ben: I think the best word for your argument is disingenuous at best:

out of respect for Froborr's position that persuasion around religious topics is evil, you should really put trigger warnings on any article that takes a position on any religious subject.

You are obviously trying to "brilliantly" back us into a corner where we suddenly *see the light* and realize that if we are to use trigger warnings on anything we have to use trigger warnings on everything and THUS trigger warnings are bad.

This is a silly argument.

You aren't even properly summarizing Froborr's position/argument in the recent argument.

You are just trying to use a single line in an article written by an atheist about some aspect of some atheist communities to attempt to marginalize/demonize writing about religions.

(About which, if you read the board all the time you would know we sometimes DO include TRIGGER WARNINGS when appropriate.)

[Ben]

As I said before, I'm not against trigger warnings. I'm just pointing out the implications of Froborr's article.

*I'm* not in favour of marginalizing/demonizing writing about religion. Froborr is.

Although people tried to defend the article by attempting to interpret in some way other than what it clearly said, it argues quite clearly that proselytising is wrong because a change in religious world view is so painful that inducing it in somebody else can't be justified. And Froborr explicitly states that by "proselytising" he just means "persuading" ("... [Greta Christina thinks] I should be okay with [persuading people to be atheists], because she promises not to use legal coercion or violence to bring it about. / I am not okay with this.").

Froborr is saying that *anyone* who attempts to spread an religious/atheistic worldview is perpetrating "evil in one of its purest forms". So he's accusing Mormons, evangelical Christians, and any other proselytising religions of doing "evil" just for acting on their deeply-held religious precepts! That seems like religious hate speech to me.

[Mmy]

@Ben: As I said before, I'm not against trigger warnings. I'm just pointing out the implications of Froborr's article.

No, you "aren't against them" you trivialize them, laugh at them, and call them silly. That I would call a distinction without a difference.

And I am not sure that you are even fully aware (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) of the difference between things which get trigger warnings (that is, TW work to prevent people from having images/concepts sprung on them) and a single sentence that was the conclusion of a long argument but which could be seen coming as one worked it through.

So, no, your arguments, such as they are, are not cutting it with me.

[Mmy]

@Ruby: Interesting as a Paganism: More Complicated Than That sounds, it does raise the question of why there was a Paganism 101. Is there only one way to be pagan?

Nope, in fact the first paragraph of the Paganism 101 states:

This piece will try to speak about many Pagans; we, its authors, do not try to speak for anyone other than ourselves as individuals with any sense of authority. We do make some attempts at describing others, but these are not applicable to all Pagans and are definitely not prescriptive in any sense. Paganism as a general category has no hierarchy or centralized authority, and many sub-groups prefer to work through consensus, which makes it even more difficult to make accurate broad statements.

[Anonymous]

Allie, perhaps it's an overgeneralisation, but it can be confusing, how often numbers are used and the way in which they're used. In my country, the equivalent of the telephone number "nine one one" is pronounced "one hundred twelve". If my home phone number were 987-654 (six digits), i would give it as "nine hundred eighty seven [pause] six hundred fifty four". An American would say the movie The Wizard of Oz came out in nineteen thirty-nine, but in other parts of the world (here) they would say it came out in one thousand nine hundred thirty nine. As Lonespark pointed out, Americans say "nine eleven" instead of September 11, even though this is confusing to the entire rest of the world who would assume it meant 9th November if they realised it was a date at all.

I'm not saying Americans are Doing it Wrong, I'm just saying that they do it differently, and that foreigners pick some things up from osmosis because Americans on the internet have a tendency to use American-specific terminology without realising that's what they're doing, but lacking the cultural context, a lot of information gets lost along the way.

Also, in writing it the way I did, I was alluding to another habit that occurs most often in the opposite direction (english speaking world -> everyone else) where they learn a few tidbits about a culture and assume they know more than they do, for example the meme about Eskimo (which isn't a language; there are quite a few different languages spoken by the peoples we lump together as Eskimos) has 300 words for snow* and that means more or less than it does. Or just about every explanation for the wars in the Balkans I've ever read.

* it doesn't. English, with words like blizzard, sleet, slush, snow, flurries, has more different root words for snow than the Inuit languages do.

[Ruby, on the go]

@mmy: Okay, that just makes me more confused. If there is more than one way to be Pagan and more than one way to be atheist, why the difference in approaches now? Can the atheists not explain our similarities and our differences well enough in a friendly, open, explanatory 101 like the Pagans had?

[Ben]

No, you "aren't against them" you trivialize them, laugh at them, and call them silly. That I would call a distinction without a difference.

The transhumanism trigger warning seems silly, especially because it seems like it was instituted because somebody didn't like references to animal abuse that were in some transhumanist articles. The correct response is to put an "animal abuse" trigger warning.

You are trying to derail the discussion of the real issue here: Froborr's insistence that any kind of persuasion about religious issues is inherently evil. He thinks Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are evil! That's hateful speech and I don't understand why you are tolerating it at all.

[Kit Whitfield]

Interesting as a Paganism: More Complicated Than That sounds, it does raise the question of why there was a Paganism 101. Is there only one way to be pagan?

@Ruby: you said you weren't saying anything serious about atheism till after the round table appeared, but I'm assuming from the tone of your question that you've changed your mind about that.

So, to answer:

No, but as a religious with some definite practices, there are at least finite ways of being a Pagan, and if you differ from them too much you probably aren't a Pagan. You can draw lines between Heathen and Pagan and Wiccan and talk about specific beliefs and devotional activities.

Atheism, on the other hand, is a single belief with no shared worldview, dogma, rituals or practice. An atheism 101 would look like this:

Q: What is an atheist?
A: Somebody who doesn't believe in any gods.
Q: Is there any more to it than that? Beliefs one has to hold, practices one has to observe, common culture, philosophies or worldviews one has to share?
A: Nope. Not believing in any gods. That's pretty much it.

In order not to simplify to the point of writing the 'wrong' kind of atheist out of existence, a simple Atheist 101 would be short and boring. This is why we initially proposed a round table instead.

On the other hand, since Paganism does have some beliefs and practices shared by its followers, there was at least somewhere to start. And since we haven't had any complaints from the Pagan section of the community, I assume that the 101 didn't imply there was only one way to be Pagan.

Atheists in the community, however, have been complaining that 'only one type of atheist' is a problem they face. So we're proposing the 101 to address that.

We're trying to respond to the expressed needs of the community. Atheists have expressed the need for a voice and we're trying to address it in ways that will work. Pagans have expressed the desire to write about their beliefs and we're trying to accommodate that.

--

Ben, you're not big, you're not clever and you're not funny. Go play outside while the grown-ups talk.

[mercredigirl]

@Kit:

With all due respect, "Go play outside while the grown-ups talk" -- that stings, because I do believe in all good faith that you do not wish me to leave this community, but makes me feel excluded because of my age.

(But I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment in its wider context, and appreciate TBAT's commitment to erring on the side of caution with trigger warnings.)

[Ben]

All I'm doing is doing Froborr the courtesy of taking his article seriously and point out the implications of what it says. In return, it seems Kit Whitfield and Mmy are being very dismissive and patronising.

[Ruby, on the go]

@Kit: It's not about changing my mind. I thought there we going to be getting a 101 like the Pagans got. Now we are getting a complicated-atheism-myths thing. So, if the event I referred to is not going to occur, how shall I hold to my resolution?

[Kit Whitfield]

@mercredigirl - I beg your pardon. I was just referring to a grown-up attitude, ie not laughing at other people's triggers, which I definitely would consider you to have, but I'm sorry if it upset you.

--

@ruby - so what do you want?

[hapax]

Froborr's insistence that any kind of persuasion about religious issues is inherently evil.

No, Froborr's article did not say that.

Your pretending it said that in order to create some sort of "GOTCHA!" moment is neither clever nor amusing.

If you are truly confused about what Froborr's article said, please go read the comment thread, where it is discussed, disagreed with, expanded, modified, and the implications are chewed over, with exhaustive detail.

If you still have something to say about that article, please post it THERE, instead of derailing this thread.

[Ruby, on the go]

Oh, true love, children, enough money to satisfy both my needs and a once-in-a-while splurge, world peace, a cure for cancer...same things I've always wanted.

You said I was changing my mind. I pointed out that I haven't, but that the circumstances have changed. I was curious, and still am, but if you want me not to be serious, I can roll with that...

So, how 'bout that new episode of Castle on Monday? Fun, eh?

[hapax]

I thought there we going to be getting a 101 like the Pagans got. Now we are getting a complicated-atheism-myths thing.

The Paganism 101 was very different from the Depression 101. That is because they are very different subjects.

When the topic of "Atheism 101" first came up, the conversation in the comment threads seemed to indicate that the many atheists in the community approached and felt about atheism very differently. Thus the proposal for a roundtable, in which different people could describe their worldview.

This produced a large number of excellent, insightful essays, and a small number of ... problematic ones. In the interest of privacy, I do not wish to discuss the particular problems. However, this has caused the (extremely unfortunate, everyone agrees) delay in putting up the completed set of essays. Hence this deadline post.

During this long delay, it became apparent in regard to community comments that the roundtable format did not address some questions that certain atheist members of our community would like to address. The "myths / it's more complicated than that" post is designed to look at some of those issues.

TL;DR -- The "101" designation was probably an unfortunate choice, with implications that can't be sustained. We're trying to move away from that. "Atheism 101" =/= "Paganism 101" =/= "Depression 101" because Atheism =/= Paganism =/= Depression.

[Ben]

hapax: Froborr concluded: "What Greta Christina advocates--what any atheist advocates when they suggest “increasing the numbers of atheists” as a laudable goal, what any adherent of any religion advocates when they suggest “increasing the number of members of my religion”--is evil in one of its purest forms."

There's no other way to interpret that: persuading someone to join your religion/abandon theirs is 'evil in one of its purest forms', according to Froborr. He explicitly says he's not talking about coercion.

I've read the discussion under the article and all I see is some people try to pretend that the article was saying something else.

The reason I bring it up in this thread is that if you are attempting to make this community friendlier to atheists, you shouldn't publish articles by pseudo-atheist trolls like Froborr who think that persuading someone to become an atheist is "evil" (and incidentally label proselytising faiths as "evil") too.

It's disgusting hate speech. And as a genuine atheist, when I object, I'm met with ageist, dismissive, patronising reaction from a position of religious privilege.

[hapax]

Ben, I will politely once again ask you to take your discussion of Froborr's article to that thread.

If anyone wishes to engage with your argument, they can do that there.

Please stop derailing this thread.

[Sixwing]

Mm. Hapax beat me to it (and probably said it better than I would've). Thanks.

I'm very much looking forward to the atheism articles - I live in an atheist-hostile area, and don't get much of a chance to hear from anyone I know is an atheist.

[mercredigirl]

And as a genuine atheist

Right. Because the rest of us aren't real.

[Ben]

hapax: The reason I bring it up in this thread is that if you are attempting to make this community friendlier to atheists, you shouldn't publish articles by pseudo-atheist trolls like Froborr who think that persuading someone to become an atheist is "evil" (and incidentally label proselytising faiths as "evil") too.

[mercredigirl]

(Sorry, hapax - didn't see your note. Will stop engaging here.)

[The Board Administration Team]

Ben: Any further discussions of this issue should take place on the thread devoted to the original article.

Comments posted to this thread will be deleted.

[Mmy]

@Ruby: It's not about changing my mind. I thought there we going to be getting a 101 like the Pagans got. Now we are getting a complicated-atheism-myths thing. So, if the event I referred to is not going to occur, how shall I hold to my resolution?

Ruby -- what you are getting is both a roundtable and a 101.

[Kit Whitfield]

The "101" designation was probably an unfortunate choice, with implications that can't be sustained. We're trying to move away from that. "Atheism 101" =/= "Paganism 101" =/= "Depression 101" because Atheism =/= Paganism =/= Depression.

Exactly.

I'd like to add that this is good news for the atheist part of the Slacktiverse. The event Ruby referred to is going to occur: we said at the outset what it would be, which is a collection of personal accounts of atheism; since you wrote one, Ruby, you should have a pretty good idea of what to expect. Nothing's changed there.

We've now also had another idea for another way of presenting the atheist perspective. In other words, the number of collaborative atheist articles has doubled. This new one can be collaboratively edited so anyone who wants to join in can do so.

We didn't have a good idea for how to do an atheist 101-style piece before, and now we do.

The Pagans don't seem unhappy about it - and there's no reason why they should, as this isn't a zero-sum game: we can have any number of articles on Paganism, atheism or anything else as long as people write them. There's room for everything. I don't believe it's a problem for atheists either: the first article is going to be what it's always going to be, just not with the title some people are expecting because that title doesn't accurately reflect its content, and we're now going to do another piece as well which lends itself more to the '101' approach.

I really don't see what the problem is.

--

(If this isn't derail, I just want to say regarding the accusation of 'religious privilege': I'm not religious.)

[Froborr]

Two quick questions:

First, TBAT, are you waiting on any edits from me? I *think* I responded to the last e-mail you sent me with edits, but it's been a while, so I'm not sure.

Second, I'm not sure I'm clear on how the myth post will work? Are we submitting myths and responses, or are you going to post a list of myths and then we comment with responses, or..?

[The Board Administration Team]

@Froborr: Will double check. In fact in the next few days we should be sending out emails to everyone who submitted to verify that we are all on the same page.

Second, re the myths. You can submit myths and responses or just myths you would like responses to.

(Somehow I wanted to work in the possibility of submitting responses without myths)

[Lonespark]

It sounds like we are evolving our definition of "101-type posts." The Pagan one including some very basic stuff about Paganism in general and a few specific traditions. It also had some additional details and complications, but we took stuff out and agreed to not go in to certain things since we were trying for a basic introductory post. The follow-up thing I was proposing now would be a More Complicated sequel: a Paganism 202, so to speak.

It sounds like what's happening with the atheist things is that there will be one post dealing with perspectives and one with basic myth busting, so basically the same things we did in our 101 along with some things I'd like to see us do in our 202, but split up a little differently, mostly because of the number of contributors and/or the distinctness of the contributions.

Now that I've written that, I'm thinking Paganism 202 wouldn't be a single post. It would be a series about issues in different communities, framed by the experience and practices of Slacktivites. (I think my recent post would fall in that category, although I don't know if I originally wrote and submitted it before the 101 happened.)

And now that I've written that, it seems to me that we've had a fair amount of Atheism 202 already from different contributors...but without a 101/FAQ, some basic stuff hasn't been explicitly addressed, including what different people mean when the identify as atheists. It sounds like that will be in the Roundtable and 101. I am looking forward to reading those!

[Mmy]

@Lonespark: It sounds like we are evolving our definition of "101-type posts." The Pagan one including some very basic stuff about Paganism in general and a few specific traditions. It also had some additional details and complications, but we took stuff out and agreed to not go in to certain things since we were trying for a basic introductory post. The follow-up thing I was proposing now would be a More Complicated sequel: a Paganism 202, so to speak.

We are not yet a year old here and we are still feeling out how to do these things. It is amazing to me how, as a community, we have attempted to forge something new (or at least something not common.) At the beginning we not only didn't how to go about creating certain things -- we didn't even know what is what we wanted to create.

So, if we knew then what we know now would we have done things as we did then?

Probably not. But you know, we had to be there and go through that in order to get here.

[Froborr]

@TBAT: Cool, thanks!

[Lonespark]

...and we've also had Paganism 202, or higher, posts previously, most notably the Wheel of the Year ones.

I would say, in general, this isn't a 101-level place. There's a basic level of understanding that really helps to engage on most subjects. I don't think that's different from when it was all Fred, except that the subjects are different-but-overlapping.

Speaking of which, is there going to be a Christianity 101? I think that would be wonderful. A lot of us have had contact with Christians and Christian culture and Christian institutions, but a 101 that could touch on the variety of traditions, around the world now and in the past...it is to dream.

[hapax]

Lonespark, I would be very nervous about doing a "Christian 101" for two reasons:

1. -- Christianity is at least culturally dominant in most of the places members of our community live. I think it would be ... I'm not sure of the right phrase, maybe appropriating lack-of-privilege? (ughh) ... to pretend that anyone here needs to have basic Christianity outlined for them.

(In any case, I personally think Fred Clark does a pretty good job of that)

2. I suspect that the Christian members of our community, who would be the natural collaborators of such a post, are by self-selection even more unrepresentative of this very varied faith tradition than the members of other traditions and world views.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on both points, however.

[Wysteria]

I would love a Christianity 101, if anyone was interested in writing pieces for it. I didn't grow up in the Christian tradition, and I often end up feeling like I missed a class everyone else took years ago.

[Mmy]

@Lonespark: Speaking of which, is there going to be a Christianity 101?

Wow. It would be interesting but before it could even begin we would have to have the type of conversations that we have learned (from experience) need to take place before doing something like this. (Yes!!! we do learn from experience.)

Questions that will come up:

1) What is this thing Christianity? And who decides what constitutes Christianity?

I know of people who don't consider Catholics to be Christians. Or Mormons to be Christians. Or........

And who decides? Pope Benedict? Tim LeHaye? Fred Clark?

2) If one accepts that, for example, Roman Catholics are Christians then who "speaks for" what it is to be a Roman Catholic? Do the different regional voices/flavours of Catholicism get included in the treatment? And do people who like me were raised Catholic and continue to be in many ways "culturally Catholic" have a voice in the discussion.

Who speaks for the Baptists? Who speaks for the Mormons? Who speaks for the Methodists?

Can one be considered a Christian if one is a Pelagian? Must one be a Trinitarian or is Arianism allowed?

Which isn't a way of saying "we can't do that" but rather we have learned over time that our motto holds -- it is (usually) more complicated than that.

[Lonespark]

I think it at least deserves additional discussion, but this is neither an open thread nor an open-ish thread for the purpose of discussing proposed posts, so I move the discussion be tabled or at least redirected.

[Lonespark]

Oh, and one more general comment. We aren't really doing Christianity/Paganism/etc. 101 posts in a general sense. It's more like "Slacktivite Christianity 101," and "Slacktivite Paganism," and mental health, and QUILTBAG folks issues etc. etc. But that seems to be an understood silent caveat...unless we need to spell it out better?

[The Board Administration Team]

@Lonespark: Froborr asked recently if we could have another completely open thread -- perhaps we should put one up on Friday for these wide-ranging discussions.

[Kit Whitfield]

Does anyone likely to read this lack a 101-level knowledge of Christianiity? I really doubt it. I think a round table would be better.

[storiteller]

1) What is this thing Christianity? And who decides what constitutes Christianity?

I was thinking about doing a post about how I came to consider myself a multi- denominational Christian. I just haven't figured out where to start. So there will be that at least if I get around to it.

[PastyAndUnhealthy]

@Kit: Well, it depends on what we mean by "101-level", doesn't it? Speaking as someone who went to Sunday School a couple years, I could probably come up with the basic tenets(a junked-up Nicene Creed, basically) but anything more than that and I'd be lost(What is the difference between a minister, a pastor, a reverend, and a priest, exactly?)

Plus some people may be reading from places where Christianity is a minority religion, or where they only know what they've absorbed through pop-culture.

[Froborr]

@Kit: Wysteria said zie feels zie does, five comments above you.

I know if I had not made a point of taking comparative religion classes, I would have no idea (for example) what the difference between Catholics and Protestants is, beyond "Catholics recognize the authority of the Pope and cardinals." (Does not help that I never actually took any college-level history, and so I had the entire history of not-the-USA* in one year.)

*At least, it was called World History. Except for passing early references to Egypt and Mesopotamia, then later a bit of medieval China, it was pretty much European history.

[Kit Whitfield]

Wysteria said zie feels zie does, five comments above you.

Guess that'll teach me to make comments on an iPad when I'm just coming down from settling the baby! Oops. Sorry Wyesteria.

[dr ngo]

As an atheist (and a contributor to the forthcoming roundtable, in'sh'allah), I presumably have no standing with regard to Christianity 101. However, in the course of lecturing on Asia, I wound up giving (very) introductory lectures on the major religions of the region, including Christianity, and this in a society - Hong Kong - where many of the students did NOT in fact have a "101" understanding of Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.). What it forces the lecturer to do is boil to down its very essence the fundamentals of "Christianity" in all its forms - particularly what distinguishes it from other major religions, in this case - and then indicate briefly but broadly, with a sweeping wave of the hand, the almost infinite variety the forms can take. I'm not sure how useful/suitable it would be for this forum, where (as noted above) most people already have at least a "101" understanding, but it can be done.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Wysteria - and sorry for typing your name wrong too; that never makes an apology better. I think I need to go to bed.

[truth is life]

@Lonespark: Froborr asked recently if we could have another completely open thread -- perhaps we should put one up on Friday for these wide-ranging discussions

I have to say that I would LOVE the idea of having completely open threads from time to time! Once in a while, I have some question to ask or something I'd REALLY like to say, but which neither warrants a post of its own nor fits into existing posts and their comment threads. I suppose other people probably feel the same way from time to time.

[Wysteria]

@Kit Whitfield No worries! I didn't even notice the name thing.

[Ross]

I would think that one point in favor of a Christianity 101 is that, by virtue of Christianity being the dominant religion in the parts of the world best represented here, there _is_ a strong tendency for it to be sort of invisible in a forest-for-the-trees kind of way. I know we've had instances where some of the non-christians have been surprised to discover that christianity isn't a monolith but has a similar kind of diversity within itself to what we see in the various non-christian spiritual positions. I mean, how many times have we had to disabuse someone of the idea that All Christians are Young Earth Creationists or Christianity Always Means Never Asking Questions Or Dissenting In Any Way

[Deird, who disagrees with her own church on all sorts of things]

I know we've had instances where some of the non-christians have been surprised to discover that christianity isn't a monolith but has a similar kind of diversity within itself to what we see in the various non-christian spiritual positions. I mean, how many times have we had to disabuse someone of the idea that All Christians are Young Earth Creationists or Christianity Always Means Never Asking Questions Or Dissenting In Any Way

I recently had an atheist friend express surprise on her blog that there were Christians who DIDN'T agree with the ultra-conservative Christian lobbyist groups in Australia. To which I expressed my utter horror that she hadn't known that, and pointed out that I only know three Christians who DO agree with them...

Unfortunately, extremists can do a very good job of stealing the spotlight.

[AnaMardoll]

How I would love to see this. Can we get some volunteers?

Re: Paganism, I would contribute. But I might need someone to suggest topics, because I'm not always good at coming up with pagan things off the top of my head to talk about. I'm a shy pagan! (I keep meaning to do a Tarot post, though. Maybe I should do that!)

Re: Christianity

I would LOVE an... "alternative Christianity" post. I... well, I came from a very damaging form of Christianity and I really thought that was the only form it COULD conceivably take. I've learned so much from people like Fred and hapax over the last few years. I no longer feel a defensive internal trigger whenever Christianity comes up in a conversation.

However, that may not be the round-table that people want to write! And that's okay. but I would totally read it. :)

[AnaMardoll]

(I am using "round table" and "101" interchangeably, but I'm perceiving that that is wrong. Sorry for any confusion. I think -- if I understand the difference between the terms -- that I prefer round-tables to 101s for the above stated reason in the OP.)

[Deird, who is naive and clueless]

Ana, for my part I'd happily contribute to an "alternative Christianity" post, but have little idea of what people would find interesting. I think of my ideas as being so boringly normal that it takes me a while to realise they're not what people are expecting.

What sort of discussion would you be interested in?

[AnaMardoll]

What sort of discussion would you be interested in?

To speak only for myself, I grew up in a Literal Interpretation Christianity. I'm always interested when non-literal Christians talk about how they view the Bible and their traditions through their personal interpretations.*

* I mentioned Robert Price in another thread, who would appear-to-me-to-be an agnostic Christian -- he seems to view Christian myths as a valuable source of, um, value (Department of Redundancy Department!) without being strictly "true" in various senses (he does not, for instance, seem to believe in the literal existence of a man named Jesus as described in the Biblical gospels).

Interestingly enough, the most common question I receive about Wicca are, basically, how my Wicca differs from Hollywood Wicca. I would imagine that a lot of Christianity questions are about how the non-literal, highly-nuanced versions of Christianity on the board differ from, er, Current Republican Candidates Who Want To Take Away My Birth Control Christianity. Or, for that matter, the LaHaye Christianity. Although, of course, Fred does that. But more reading is always fun! :)

[mercredigirl]

Ana, I would love a Tarot post! I confess I know very little of Tarot, but am greatly intrigued by what little I know, especially the many variations in decks.

[mercredigirl]

Also, Mmy, wrt your question in the Lunar New Year thread, I've answered it there, but the comment may have been lost in the recent deluge of conversation!

[Madhabmatics]

I have a deck of Tarot cards but Tim Powers has me so intimidated by them that I keep earmuffs on them until it's time to play Castle Falkenstein or The Everlasting so that they won't hear details of my personal life! >:)

[Nenya]

@Madhabmatics: Why would you need earmuffs for tarot? *is intrigued*

I had my first/only tarot reading done a week or two ago, and it was really surprising. It was about 90% bang on accurate as far as where I am in my life right now. I had vaguely expected it to be predictive of the future in some way, but it wasn't really, no more than sitting down with someone and talking out what is likely to happen. And yet it was really reassuring, oddly enough.

I'd also expected it to be a bit spooky, or to require some of the "must. believe. real. hard!" mental energy that I used to throw at things in Pentacostal churches--but no. It was the most calm and nonthreatening thing ever. (May have been helped by it being my girlfriend who did the cards for me, but I don't think that explains it entirely.)

(Incidentally, she's a Christian, and we talked later about how we don't know many Christians who do tarot!)

[MercuryBlue]

I started to reply to Nenya, but then realized my comment was getting awful long.

[Izzy]

I would love/contribute to a Tarot post as well.

[hapax]

(Incidentally, she's a Christian, and we talked later about how we don't know many Christians who do tarot!)

Charles Williams. THE GREATER TRUMPS.

Williams was one of the Inklings, and this is arguably his best book. It's a surrealist apocalyptic tarot love story, and will alternately inspire, madden, and stupefy you.

Also worth checking out -- Italo Calvino's CASTLE OF CROSSED DESTINIES.

Not exactly a novel, not exactly linked short stories, more a series of tarot spreads cast into narrative form. I don't know about Calvino's personal faith, but this one is dripping with Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) imagery.

I'm intrigued by tarot's use of archetypes, but I have only the barest grasp of it. I'd love a post exploring tarot more deeply.

[AnaMardoll]

Where should we talk about the Tarot post? The Completely Open Thread? I am interested in talking about this thing, because there is NO WAY whatever I write will cover the other people in this thread, so now I'm thinking TAROT ROUND-TABLE. LOL.

[Literata]

I'm stopping in briefly after being away for a while. I would love to work on Tarot topics and/or help coordinate a round table on that or Paganism More Complicated Than That.

Nenya, I'm glad you had a good first reading! The "sit down and talk about things" approach is what I use, too. To me, a Tarot reading is mostly or most often a form of counseling and self-exploration with outside aids to reflection.

I look forward to the wide-ranging post on atheism. Kudos to TBAT for working to give each of these its own appropriate form.

[mercredigirl]

Tarot Roundtable? I would love to see one, would love to learn more! :D

[MercuryBlue]

Literata, I recommend you avoid the Problem of Proselytizing and Board Post Jan 26 and...dammit, forgot what thread he hit first. (We got trolled.)

[Literata]

Thanks, MB. I saw enough of those to avoid the rest and vote for banning.

If folks are happy with how I helped coordinate the Paganism post, would people like to start emailing me off board with ideas for an Intro to Tarot post? If not, no problem, and we can always do multiple posts.

[AnaMardoll]

I love the idea of the Tarot round table, although I will only be able to write from my own perspective as I'm not formally trained. Can we request an open thread for coordination? I've seen, oh, 3-4 people express interest and I think email could get a bit cloggy. :D

[Amaryllis]

@Literata: Welcome back!

@hapax: Well, that's two more books for the List!

Isn't J.K. Rowling supposed to have used some tarot imagery in the Harry Potter books? I don't know much about Tarot, but I believe there are numerous references to the Hanged Man in book four-- and of course, all of book six is leading up to the Lightning-Struck Tower. Seems to me there were others, but I can't recall them off-hand.

[AnaMardoll]

Isn't J.K. Rowling supposed to have used some tarot imagery in the Harry Potter books? I don't know much about Tarot, but I believe there are numerous references to the Hanged Man in book four-- and of course, all of book six is leading up to the Lightning-Struck Tower. Seems to me there were others, but I can't recall them off-hand.

I don't know about Harry Potter, but Joanne Harris of "Chocolat" fame uses Tarot imagery a LOT and...

...she uses very different definitions than what I'm used to. In particular, The Star and The Hermit seem to be very BAD cards in her interpretation and those are generally pretty good cards in my own. So this can get very confusing for me.

I don't think she's ignorant of Tarot like some authors are; I think she's genuinely coming from another tradition. But when movies use Death to mean, well, death, and Hanging Man to mean a noose, I get twitchy because, well, I feel like it's not representative of how I and other readers interpret those cards.

[Izzy]

@Ana: ...the Star? Really? Whoa. I've seen people go both ways on Death and the Tower (both good-if-traumatic-change cards the way I learned it) and the Hanged Man has the potential for negativity (I've learned it as "high-stakes trial that you may not pass") but that's the first I've heard of the Star being a problem.

Have you seen Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows? I remember finding the Tarot scene there pretty interesting--not an "actual" reading, of course, but what Holmes does seems pretty close to cold reading anyhow.

[AnaMardoll]

[tw: pregnancy termination]

@Izzy, in Harris' "Sleep, Pale Sister", the Star heads a chapter that involves a miscarriage. Of course, not all miscarriages are unwelcome particularly in the historical setting of the novel where an abortion probably could not be safely gotten, but the event is highly traumatic for the people involved in the story and to the best of my interpretation no one ever looks back on it as a good thing in the book.

I've not seen the latest Sherlock Holmes movie, though I did see the earlier one with all the same actors.

[Rebecca]

@hapax: Yes to The Castle of Crossed Destinies! It is awesome. (Readers should be aware though that it's very intertextual and while it will probably be enjoyable even by people less than familiar with folktales, Ariosto, and Shakespeare, that really helps.)