Believe In Robots

I am writing to you today as an atheist who has been avidly following your podcast online for the past five plus months. In that time I have micro-blogged about your show on the social networking sites I participate in. I have spoken favorably about your show to friends, colleagues and neighbors. I have found your show an invaluable resource when debating relevant topics. I am in short not simply a fan but a supporter and a beneficiary of your work.

However, I am also writing you today as a gay man. While historically in this role I have had nothing but praise for your show (including your show's criticisms of how gay liberation movements often eschew atheism.) Your most recent show gives me pause. I speak of the October 2nd show entitled "The Amazing Colossal Emails."

In this show the subject of coming out is discussed with emphasis on how it is cashed out within the atheist visibility movement and within gay culture respectively. In lieu of, a nuanced discussion of how one ought to fight for a minority's rights versus one's own happiness and safety, Sam makes a disturbing set of assertions with the conscious intention of emotionally provoking those who disagree with him:

I was frankly a bit shocked and hurt by this very assertion. It is also an argument I did not expect to hear coming from like minded people who value reason and logic in their discourse. Taken at the most minimal level it either asserts that whole categories of people who most certainly exist do not, or it belittles the real pain suffering and loss of gay men and women who happen to agree with what is essentially a political idea. Sam then ends his claims with the statement about the real dangers to himself when he came out of the closet as an atheist, as if the dangers and losses he faced were somehow greater or more real than the gay men and women whose existence he denied.

It is an argument from emotion, presented with no supporting evidence and was entirely without empirical data. Instead of exercising the principle of charity the weakest interpretation of the opposing argument was given. The implication of which, was that proponents of this idea feel it should be carried out even if it would physically endanger peoples lives.

It is not my belief that your show intentionally went out of the way to hurt and belittle the pain, loss, shattered families, and the real physical injuries received by others.

It is also not my intention to demand a retraction or extract an apology.

However your show and you yourselves are better than this.

Please find time on your show to engage in a nuanced discussion of this topic where both sides are presented. A discussion which avoids dangerously dismissive and emotional language. The notion of one's obligation to come out when one is sheltered. aided and helped by the very same community their invisibility hurts is a complex one and you do yourselves, and your listeners, a disservice by presenting it as a caricature.

In spite of this I do hope you continue the excellent work you do for myself and other atheists.

- Wes