Harris sits down with Pinker for a discussion about the history of violence.

Sam Harris asks, “Need I remind you that the ‘atheist regimes’ of the 20th century killed tens of millions of people?”

Steven Pinker has a great response.

This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.
First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia.

Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White’s Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe.

When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between theistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. I present data from the political scientist Rudolph Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government. [Read More.]

While us atheists realize that Hitler’s world philosophy was shaped from Christianity and the bible, some people still like to say he was an atheist. He considered Jews to be atheists because they did not accept Jesus as the messiah. He hated Jews. He hated atheists. He hated a lot of people. As an atheist Jew, I take much offense to allegations that Hitler was an atheist. As far as the others go, I don’t have nearly as much personal angst. In any case, it wasn’t so-called atheist philosophies that shaped their policies.

The book: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

From gnostic to agnostic,  theist to atheist; there are many positions having to do with belief or possible knowledge of a belief. Gnostic and agnostic have to do with knowledge, while theist and atheist have to do with belief. Agnostic is not a mid point between atheism and theism.

Most of the beauty products marketed to women (and, more recently, men) seem to be full of empty promises. I can’t speak about every beauty product out there in one sweeping remark but I’d bet that most them are unnecessary lies.

It’s about time that men finally get a piece of that pie, though it’d be best for no one to have to receive messages selling us solutions to help us be what we “should” be. Moreover, solutions that don’t even work. Some scar creams do work, at least anecdotally. I’ve used cocoa butter that really helped some scars fade; I can’t seem to find how anecdotal or verifiable that is. I can also see how some acne medications work, at least in some cases. As far as many other marketed products, I can’t help but think it’s mostly just a void money-maker.

As far as ageing creams go, hydrating is probably useful for skin. I can see how general lotion may help skin, at least make it feel better. To me, where I fist started to call bullshit is the differentiation between eye creams and face creams. Sure, your feet might need a thicker cream whereas a light lotion would feel better on your face. But why is an eye cream specifically for eyes? No one has been able to answer this. From those pushing a certain product just say to “buy it” or “use it” without ever telling me why. How is this string of ingredients I don’t understand better than that string?

Exfoliating helps slough off dead skin cells. I get that. Whenever I buy a face wash, I look for salicylic acid, as I’ve found it to work wonders on blackheads. Also, not living in humid weather also helps me, though I’ve heard those with dry skin prefer the moisture in the air for their skin. I also have many other reasons for despising humidity but I don’t need to go into those now. :P

Diet pills are the funniest. I actually tried many different types in college. Even with diet and regular exercise, none of them worked. Though, my workouts are always a bit half-assed. When a diet pill’s claim says they must be used with diet and exercise, how is one to know if it’s the diet pill that worked or just the diet and exercise? Other than speeding up your system (and metabolism), I can’t see any of them working. Unless it’s coke or speed, I can’t see them being that effective. And as soon as a drug is known to be effective, it’s scheduled/banned due to other dangerous side effects (like ephedra).

There’s some skepticism in health products (which overlap) but not much information that’s easy to find concerning the science in beauty products. They often make nonsensical claims, saying bizarre things that are sometimes laughable. Using interesting graphics, marketers make them seem just as cool as filmmakers make hacking or even going online (many years ago) look cool in movies. Maybe this is one reason to account for the imbalance of women in skepticism. However, I don’t see as sharp of an imbalance as others do, there is some. Maybe occasionally focusing on some of the typical claims made to women is a place to start?

I really want to move on from this but I keep reading the exact same perspective from big bloggers, completely ignoring Stef McGraw or stclairose. Is this on purpose to make a point? I feel like rational dissenter’s voices are being quelled for not going along with some form of groupthink.

Stef’s first post on the subject begins:

It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person? [Read More]

Then Watson calls her out in a way that upsets many. She puts her in the same category as the assholes saying they wish she’d be raped. She calls her a misogynist apologist for having a differing opinion. Not to mention that this was in a setting where Watson had the stage and McGraw was just an audience member.

Her response post:

Leadership Conference this past weekend during Rebecca Watson’s talk, and I would like to take this time to formally address what I think of her actions. Watson’s point of view can be seen on her blog, Skepchick.org.

Let me start by saying there are two different issues at hand, and that one’s thoughts toward one do not necessarily have to correlate with one’s opinion on the other. The first issue is whether or not Watson’s criticism of the man in the elevator (who asked if she would like to get coffee in his room at 4:00 am) is justified. The second is whether or not her decision to call out a student during her keynote speech was appropriate. Reading many comments on both sides has made me realize that it’s necessary to make this distinction early on, as many people seem to be yelling over each other arguing completely different matters.

Exactly. Some people are not even on the same page of the book, while some are reading a magazine. And maybe some are drawing pictures. I don’t know how to end this extended metaphor. But it’s in there somewhere.

I happen to be quite annoyed and offended at the dismissing of these women’s views. Why are they’re feelings not worthy? No one has said (that I’ve seen) Rebecca is not right to feel creeped out. That’s not the issue. It’s that she is trying to silence other people (including many women) for disagreeing or seeing a point differently. Not her nor anyone in her camp will even debate these points; they just call us names and/or delete our comments. It’s not rational discourse.

She goes on:

There was no time at the conference where I, as a student attendee, could appropriately make any sort of public statement addressing what Watson claimed about my argument and me. She has said over Twitter that “An attendee has every right to counter during Q&A or by publicly blogging again later,” but there are issues with both of these approaches. First, the Q&A was not an option in my mind, as I wasn’t going to get up after her great talk and argue with her about something unrelated; I have more respect for a speaker than that. And second, yes, I currently am blogging about the issue, but this won’t reach everyone who went to the conference; I write for a successful student blog, not one like Skepchick that a large percentage of the secular community reads. [Read More]

If Watson’s feelings are to be respected; why not Stef’s, stclairose’s, or mine (or the many other women and men)? Why are Watson’s feelings more important than anyone else’s? Talking about feelings in a skeptical community is odd enough, but if we’re going to consider them, we must consider them all.

Just in case you missed it, here is is stclairose’s video that made her a “gender traitor” as well:

There you have it.

I believe in equality. I do not want special treatment or special rules for being a woman. Call me a traitor all you like, but it only makes you look childish.

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

It’s an awful argument. Applied to atheists, why is he taking a stand against the pope? Those in religiously-ruled countries have it much worse.

But if he said it in another way, would there be the same uproar? There’d probably still be some. Dawkins clarification response should be paired with his first statement, in all fairness.

No I wasn’t making that argument. Here’s the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics’ privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn’t physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they’d have had good reason to complain.

It’s sad when people are afraid to say what’s on their mind due to a perceived threat of unpopularity. And the fear that someone with a bigger megaphone will call you names. So fucking what? I speak for myself, I never claim to speak for anyone else. And I’m tired of being scared.

In my opinion, what the guy did in the elevator was not creepy…unless I’m missing something. Please tell me I’m missing something, that there is something more. According to the facts I’ve read of the situation, a man asked a women for coffee. What ever he meant by it, it doesn’t matter. Woman refuses. Did he insist at this point? What makes him a creep? I’ll tell you this: it is hard to get face time with Rebecca Watson. It’s virtually impossible. I went to TAM last year and never met her. I met just about everyone else I wanted to (though I did miss some). I can certainly see timidity in trying to talk to her.

I honestly feel like I’m missing something so I don’t want to opine too much about the elevator incident. What Richard Dawkins said was insensitive and inappropriate but his intention wasn’t that far off. An unwanted invitation for a date/conversation/sex may be annoying but it’s certainly does not deserve all this attention. Attention that I’m giving it. Right now.

I said the other day that I don’t think hitting on someone is innately sexist. It surely can be but the action in itself isn’t sexist. I’m not going to apologize for saying that and I will not accept the title of a “gender traitor”. If I hit on a man or woman, is that inherently sexist? When does it become sexist? After something sexist is said or done. Now I wasn’t there in the elevator so I have no idea what his body language was. Not that’s there anything scientific about body language but there are clues, sometimes very obvious, that people give off. Someone invading your personal space, being a “close-talker”, would be creepy. Standing with your arms crossed versus leaning casually on the wall may send different signals while asking a question. In regards to Elevatorgate, I haven’t heard much about that yet.

That doesn’t mean what Dawkins said was apt or appropriate. But I don’t think it was sexist. He’s defending the women of Muslim countries who have no one to speak for them. While it was insensitive and bone-headed, I don’t think it was sexist.

One thing: please don’t tell me that I’ve never been assaulted so I don’t understand. It’s a ludicrous thing to say not only because I have been assaulted, but because it’s just a dick thing to say.

I am reminded of Phil Plait’s speech from TAM8, Don’t Be a Dick. It doesn’t just apply to skepticism and atheism. It applies to everything, or at least the original (Wheaton’s Law) does.

Seen this? “Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11”

Well, then, I could just as easily say: Everything I need to know about Christianity I learned from the crusades.

Islam has a lot of problem in it, as do all religions. Islam isn’t that much different, it’s only newer and there’s been no reformation. Hatred and violence are in the Bible just as the Koran. Don’t get me wrong, I do not defend Islam. I also don’t defend Christianity or Judaism.

However, Islam may be a bigger problem because its horrors from it are happening now. The crusades were 800-900 years ago. The doings of Islam are more prevalent in today’s world. While Islam is a bigger issue, if I said the latter, “Everything I need to know about Christianity I learned from the crusades,” there’d be a barrage of negative comments from Christians telling me why that “logic” is false.

I don’t want to discuss this specific incident so much as to get at a broader point. In my view, hitting on someone is not innately sexist. It surely depends on what is specifically said. Nasty comments about someone’s looks or invasion of personal space can make an unwanted advance creepy.

But it’s all time and place. When I was a single woman in college, being asked for coffee at 4 in the morning may have elicited a response of “I’ll come up but I don’t want coffee.” Fast forward to years later, it could be a completely different story. When making a move on someone, it is always advised to take into consideration what the other person is experiencing. However, we cannot always know. No matter how I slice or dice it, I still cannot blame someone, anyone, for taking a chance. I also cannot blame someone for feeling creeped out by an unwanted advance.

I consider myself – and always have – a pretty hardcore feminist. I believe in equality across the board. I think “Ladies Night” is sexist. Feminism is not about man-hating. The basic tenants of feminism state that women should be equal to men. However, everyone has their own take on where that may lead. And that’s perfectly all right. As a sex-positive feminist, I do not think hitting on someone is innately sexist. If that’s the case, we’d all be guilty of sexism. We may all be guilty of being creepy at some point, but probably not sexist.

I’ve been attacked before, as I’ve mentioned on my Tumblr as part of another rant. I was caught in a small space with a very creepy guy. I literally thought I was going to be raped. Luckily, he just wanted to show me who’s boss and run away. ಠ_ಠ Basically, he touched me inappropriately and yelled at him to GTFO. He left and quickly came back, pinned me down for a bit. (This occurred in a vestibule of an apartment, as small as an elevator. And still, I never heard of an unwritten elevator rule.)

This has nothing to do with feminism. This is a just something that happened almost ten years ago that I thought I’d share.

As independent women, we are in charge of our bodies. We decide who we canoodle with and who we do not. “No means no” is a pretty easy rule to follow. Other than that, we must recognize our animal instincts. We must also be aware of our highly evolved consciousness. We have urges and we also have inhibitions. I believe in a being open and honest about sexuality. Let’s just say I’m a huge Greta Christina fan.

Expression of sexuality does not equate to sexism; it really depends on far more details than that. For example, a feminist can enjoy being submissive in bed, that doesn’t mean she likes being stepped on in her career or other areas. Aside from that, in some other stories I’ve heard, I have felt bad for the guy being beat upon by (women in) society because of something another man did. That type of thing is unfair. If that thinking were applied to a race, it’d be racist. That is not the case here, but I just thought I’d put it out there anyway.

Personally, I have noticed more sexism in just about every community other than skeptics and atheists. My point of view; however, does not distract me that there is a problem. But I see a bigger problem with the lack of “color”. (Though, that post deals with a lack of women, not sexism, which are two different topics.) While sexism is still a problem in general society, I don’t see a larger problem specifically in skeptic communities. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m sure it does. We should definitely work to combat sexism everywhere.

The “no means no” rule is a standard that can apply to anyone or anything. If someone says “no”, then move along. Simple. Taking “no” for an answer is the respectable thing to do. As far as the specifics of this late elevator debacle, I still feel like I’m missing some vital information. No matter how many things I read about it, I feel like there has to be more. (I also understand that most of people’s conversations are about the actions that followed this incident, not the incident itself.)

Yet I don’t want to dwell on this specific incident but use it as a jumping off point. While sexism is a problem, expressing interest in someone is not necessarily sexist. It can be. It certainly can be but it isn’t inherently. It depends on many factors that differ from case to case.

So do you think that this “gate” will make TAM9 more or less exciting?

Not quite short and sweet enough while in the midst of sexual pleasure? ;)

I’ve been asked before what atheists say during sex. Sometimes, I guess someone could be trying to be funny but it can sound derogatory.

Why is saying your partner’s name in bed such a foreign idea to some? I may have uttered “oh god” at some point in my life; I can’t be certain. Though, I never actually thought I was talking to some “other-worldly” being. It was just a thing I said.

When I was younger I thought the phrase “might as well” was “mine as well” for a brief period (until I thought about it reasonably). People misuse phrases all the time. We just say things that are what they are: menial sayings.

If they are living according to the holy book(s) some purport to, they shouldn’t be enjoying sex anyway (at least in the Abrahamic religions). Does that mean they’d be silent? Or talk about the weather? I may have not always been an out atheist but I was surely skeptical of the claims made by religion. If I ever said “oh god”, it was just a thing to say.

Is “oh god” the only thing theists ever say during sex? Is this why people are so shocked about Anthony Weiner’s tame dirty talk?