Atheism doubleplusgood

[CosmicJoghurt]

I also believe you've once again misunderstood the point of my post: You don't have to adopt the label of a+, I've made it quite clear that I won't adopt it in the first few lines. But, and this is the real point of the discussion, do you agree with their position, their ideas and their motivation?

For the most part, yes.

Fuck Richard Carrier. I don't give a rats ass about him and I've made that quite clear. Have a read what I said just above. Jen McCreight also made it quite clear:

Massimo Pigliucci quoting Jen[/url]"]And here is the kicker: shortly after Carrier posted his rant, Jen McCreight herself tweeted the following:

"Finally had time 2 read Richard Carrier's #atheismplus piece. His language was unnecessarily harsh, divisive & ableist. Doesn't represent A+."

I don't care about Richard Carrier, I just commented on him because his was the very first article quoted in this thread. People should separate Richard C from A+. They are not the same.

Understood.

No, I don't agree. At all.
Here's the problem: There are too many assholes who are religiously motivated. I'm not saying that if there'd be no religion, there'd be no war/crime/etc. No, of course not, that's stupid. What I am saying is this:
1) Religion is a hiding place for assholes. There are certain rules in the world that make it easier to be a religious asshole than to be a non-religious one. All the child molesting is just the latest in a long series of fucked up things that happened under the guise of religion.

2) Religion gives a false sense of "this is good" to assholes. I've explained my position on this earlier somewhere, so I'll try to condense it: We all agree that there are some interpretations of religion that are outright evil. Basically the whole old Testament, Mayan sacrifices, Jewish circumcision, etc. And yet, some people agree with those values. I put it to you that they'd have a much harder time justifying their views if they were non-religious.
But I'm one of the few people who actually thinks ALL religion is bad, at least to some degree. Yes Dragan, even the wishy-washy Catholicism of my Grandma. Why? Because people are comfortable accepting something that they can't prove or that is actually non-existent. It's a slippery slope from that to hallucinating and thinking you're hearing God's commandments.

Those two reasons are the ONLY reasons why there's a need for the label "atheist". If religion were as harmless as playing poker, I couldn't give a rats ass. I'd let em be and spend my time more productively. Sadly, that's not the case and we all know it. That's the reason why, sadly, the "shock-value" label "atheist" is needed.

That's also why "humanism" and "skeptic", among other reasons which I needn't go in to, are not sufficient.

I think they are. I don't quite see how the shock-value label is going to change anything. If anything, it will enable people with these views to label themselves Atheists+. So what?

As I also said, the labelling is NOT THE ISSUE. I don't care if it's A+, Humanists with an atheist touch or naked jello-wrestling from outer space. The main points I tried to make were the ones I already made:
1) There is an issue in atheism that needed to be addressed and it has.
2) The label "atheist" should necessarily be included and it has.
and so on

Pardon me but I still don't see what this "issue in atheism" is.

 

[Inferno]

If you're referring to the term "naturalism" as it relates to the art world

No, I meant philosophical naturalism. And I understand it that so do you. I'm at a loss as to how that necessitates atheism. I'll let you explain.

As a test, I went back to page 2, which is where I linked to Thunderf00t's article: it appears that the link leads to his homepage - or the latest article - not the article to which I'd originally linked.

A slightly annoying circumstance, which has caused this latter confusion and disagreement.

I trust you'll allow that that wasn't intentional on my part - I believe DepricatedZero can confirm that we were discussing the other article which Thunderf00t posted.

My fault entirely, I didn't check the link address. I still don't agree with the particular article of TF's, but it has little to no bearing on the subject in my view so I'll refrain from discussing it.

I think they are. I don't quite see how the shock-value label is going to change anything. If anything, it will enable people with these views to label themselves Atheists+. So what?

I think I've already explained why the term "atheist" is needed and also why a more inclusive term is needed. Just two links to read:
RationalWiki
Random forum

Pardon me but I still don't see what this "issue in atheism" is.

Eh, you don't? There are a bunch of misogynists running around and frankly, I don't want to associate with them. New playing field with new rules, simple as that.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think I've already explained why the term "atheist" is needed and also why a more inclusive term is needed. Just two links to read:
RationalWiki
Random forum

Yeah... I completely misunderstood your point regarding the term "atheist". Turns out I agree with you.
Nevermind, move on to the next quote!

Eh, you don't? There are a bunch of misogynists running around and frankly, I don't want to associate with them. New playing field with new rules, simple as that.

Neither do I, but so far I don't see anyone associating me with any of these guys. At all. Neither do I see any sort of automatic association, inherent my views, with these guys.

Even if there was... I still don't see the point of a huge revolution to rule the atheist movement.

 

[australopithecus]

There's probably a bunch of racists running around who also don't like cheese. I don't see why I should label myself as an acheese-ist+ just so people don't associate us erroneously. Atheism isn't a position that demands anything, so by enforcing "rules" on a position of a lacking is, in my opinion, silly. Not being a sexist/racist/homophobe is a good thing, I'd describe that as humanism as many here have said too. Why conflate humanism with atheism when neither implies the other? If people want to be atheist and sexist then that's sad but that's their problem. I don't need a new playing field, I'm happy with the one I have, even if morons are playing there too.

It reminds me of when people came here demanding the forum to speak out against tf00t, and if we don't we must be hypocrites as we claim to be reasonable. If people want to assume that I agree with sexists or racists because we share a lack of theistic beliefs then that is not my problem, it's theirs. I have no time for people who want to assume thing about me.

Atheism+, to me, reeks of smug, self congratulatory egotism. It may take longer to type, but I'll stick with atheist humanist skeptic. Maybe there's a grand point I'm missing, perhaps it's blocked by the collective ego of atheism+.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

There's probably a bunch of racists running around who also don't like cheese. I don't see why I should label myself as an acheese-ist+ just so people don't associate us erroneously. Atheism isn't a position that demands anything, so by enforcing "rules" on a position of a lacking is, in my opinion, silly. Not being a sexist/racist/homophobe is a good thing, I'd describe that as humanism as many here have said too. Why conflate humanism with atheism when neither implies the other? If people want to be atheist and sexist then that's sad but that's their problem. I don't need a new playing field, I'm happy with the one I have, even if morons are playing there too.

It reminds me of when people came here demanding the forum to speak out against tf00t, and if we don't we must be hypocrites as we claim to be reasonable. If people want to assume that I agree with sexists or racists because we share a lack of theistic beliefs then that is not my problem, it's theirs. I have no time for people who want to assume thing about me.

Atheism+, to me, reeks of smug, self congratulatory egotism. It may take longer to type, but I'll stick with atheist humanist skeptic. Maybe there's a grand point I'm missing, perhaps it's blocked by the collective ego of atheism+.

Ahhhhh. I like it when other people describe my views in a satisfactory way when I can't.

Well done and thanks.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If you're referring to the term "naturalism" as it relates to the art world

No, I meant philosophical naturalism. And I understand it that so do you. I'm at a loss as to how that necessitates atheism. I'll let you explain.

As the RationalWiki article on philosophical naturalism explains:

Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible, though a small minority believe that there are other ways of knowing.

Clearly, atheism is intrinsic to (philosophical) naturalism, - it excludes supernatural phenomena. Clark espouses Naturalism as a naturalistic explanation for "life, the universe and everything".

As a test, I went back to page 2, which is where I linked to Thunderf00t's article: it appears that the link leads to his homepage - or the latest article - not the article to which I'd originally linked.

A slightly annoying circumstance, which has caused this latter confusion and disagreement.

I trust you'll allow that that wasn't intentional on my part - I believe DepricatedZero can confirm that we were discussing the other article which Thunderf00t posted.

My fault entirely, I didn't check the link address. I still don't agree with the particular article of TF's, but it has little to no bearing on the subject in my view so I'll refrain from discussing it.

Agreed, sorry for my contribution to the misunderstanding.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

But I'm associated with dickheads by holding the label 'human' and 'male' and 'British' and 'musician' etc. I think its pointless to get hung up on labels, as anything you chose to call yourself will invariably result in being lumped in with people whom you don't particularly like. I chose to let my actions and words speak for themselves, and apply labels merely for logical and semantic convenience.

I'm not going to call myself an Atheist+ and I will not stand for people assuming that I am a misogynistic dick for not doing so, just as I wouldn't stand for someone making similar assumptions based upon the fact that I label myself 'male' and 'white' also.

I think that's a crap argument to make, because three out of four you were born in to, there's nothing you can change about it. On the other hand, you can choose to adopt a label like "humanist" or "skeptic" or "a+".

I also believe you've once again misunderstood the point of my post: You don't have to adopt the label of a+, I've made it quite clear that I won't adopt it in the first few lines. But, and this is the real point of the discussion, do you agree with their position, their ideas and their motivation?

I agree with their principles, I just don't see any need in adopting a new label. Especially not on the premise that people might associate "regular" atheists with misogynists etc. If people are stupid enough to blindly make that association then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to make concessions for their prejudice.

My opposition to Carrier stems mainly from his attitude in the comments. In particular towards the the commenter who wrote words to the effect of 'I'll stick with atheism thanks' - to which he responded 'ok so one vote for douchery' (or something similar). He didn't stop to ask why this person didn't want to adopt a new label, he simply lumped him into a category with the 'douches' without hesitation. To me that is neither reasonable, nor is it consistent with the sentiment you quoted above.

Fuck Richard Carrier. I don't give a rats ass about him and I've made that quite clear. Have a read what I said just above. Jen McCreight also made it quite clear:

Massimo Pigliucci quoting Jen[/url]"]And here is the kicker: shortly after Carrier posted his rant, Jen McCreight herself tweeted the following:

"Finally had time 2 read Richard Carrier's #atheismplus piece. His language was unnecessarily harsh, divisive & ableist. Doesn't represent A+."

I don't care about Richard Carrier, I just commented on him because his was the very first article quoted in this thread. People should separate Richard C from A+. They are not the same.

Well the post linked in this topic is by Carrier, so I think the association is a fair one. I understand that he is not the Pope of the A+ folks, but in the context of this topic, it is a relevant association to make.

 

[Aught3]

I'm still not sure what I think about atheism+. When I heard it stood for atheism plus social justice I thought it sounded a lot like Humanism and wasn't really sure what it was meant to add to the freethought spectrum. But I read a few blog posts and the one point that stands out to me is that the New Atheists are a much younger group than is generally associated with the older Humanism movement so atheism+ might be a way to bring youth into the conversations on social justice which is certainly a goal I support.

I wonder if the desire for something like atheism+ comes from the same root as the 'Don't be a dick' speech. New atheism is more confrontational and that will attract more 'dicks' who like making fun of people to the movement. But when it comes time for more serious conversations, the 'dicks' still take their natural approach and mock/troll/harass/threaten on any subject where they have a slight disagreement. Just as those on the skeptic side of the freethought movement were uncomfortable with the way new atheists approached their subjects of interest, as evidenced by Phil Plait's speech, perhaps atheism+ is the feminist side of atheism making the same point.

If atheism+ becomes a way to talk about social justice, morality, and civil right while adopting an atheist worldview or life-stance I think that it will be a positive part of the freethought community, it will just have to share a lot of space with Humanism.

 

[Inferno]

Great, so we all agree, we're just getting hung up on the labels.

 

[detrean]

It isn't just about labels. There is a difference in approach.

A humanist will reason with you as long as you are willing to reason. I'm not talking about someone that states "Black people are not as smart as white people" and when asked why they say "look at them." That isn't reasoning, that's just being a bigot. I'm talking about people that disagree about a given topic and they discuss their disagreement and flesh out their stances. That is a humanist way of talking with an opposing viewpoint.

The Atheist+ approach would to ask what label someone is or get a very surface understanding of a person's position and if they do not agree they call them names and ignore them. That is how the atheist+ movement approaches an opposing viewpoint. I know that because that is what happened to me when I suggested that our movement should have a different focus than feminism. I stated that we should focus on the basics which tend to be promotion of critical thinking skills, general understanding of our position, and political representation. For that I was labeled by the majority of atheist+ people as a misogynist and bigot.

The term was invented by a subset of the movement called free thought bloggers. They have a small circle of leaders and they follow them almost in lockstep. Any disagreement within is treated with disdain. Greta Christina (herself a FTB) told me it is like a biker bar. They do not emphasis critical thinking or rational discussion. In my opinion they are molded similarly to religion and they do have a dogma.

As a critical thinker first and a progressive second I do not support Atheism+. They have reversed the order of importance in the movement.

 

[Epiquinn]

The only reason why people would start this kind of a movement is that they can label anyone who doesn't want to be part of them or to play by their rules a racist, a misogynist or a homophobe.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

It isn't just about labels. There is a difference in approach.

A humanist will reason with you as long as you are willing to reason.

Excellent point. I know of at least one humanist that will ignore when certain circumstances arise:

1. When reasoning with another offers no viable solution.
2. When the 'hounds of hell' have been unleashed on a specific individual.
3. When intimidating behavior is used to persuade a individual. This would include most forms of collusion (deceitful and/or misleading circumstances are thought to have occurred or setups are used to prove some erroneous point).
4. When constant and consistent pressure is used to either forcefully change or limit the right of an individual to make reasonable choices.
5. When rumors are used to defame or change a persons being.

These to me would constitute a decent reason to ignore or limit specific lines of communication. If the trust threshold has been broken multiple times or acts continue to occur then ONE way of dealing with such issues could be to ignore the individual or group that started such action. Some humanists MAY decide to start over with a new slate or try to work on some issues if the other party is willing to refrain from certain acts or deceitful behavior and discuss the underlying issue or problem. If the individual has some ideas as to why an issue exists but no lines of communication are left open to discuss potential resolutions then 'ignoring' could be seen as a viable solution to some. A humanist may also wish to look into certain legal measures if the situation calls for it. In some cases I would consider my communication or words to be a privilege. If a person or group breaks the trust enough times (number dependent on the acts that I consider 'valuable'...... This tends to be a bit subjective and can vary depending on the type of relationship or can vary depending on the stage of one's life) then I will take that communication privilege away or limit the things that I will openly discuss with that individual or group but the invitation can be left open depending on the type of infraction or the topic of discussion.

It's sort of like creating a "deal breakers" list and sticking to it. The deal breakers list can also be used to set some firm relationship boundaries within various relationships.

Sometimes when 'infinite forces' meet 'immovable objects' the outcome can be less than predictable.

 

[detrean]

The above is exactly why I value humanism and consider myself humanist.

This person has a very specific set of circumstances that lead to ending communication. Even under those certain circumstances the humanist leaves open a possibility of future discussion.

No such thoughtful reasoning can be found from the atheist+ camp as a group. They exist specifically to exclude, silence, and reject. They are enemies of reason they just happen to hold positions I support.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Oops, I missed this topic and started a new one, sorry about that, here's what I originally wrote:

Lately a group of atheists have been trying to start a new atheist-related movement called "Atheism+", "Third Wave of Atheism" they call it (apparently dissatisfied with the Dawkins-style "New Atheism") which is not just about secularism or debunking religions or skeptical thinking, but also: feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, diversity and social justice.

Uh whatever :roll: Look it's not that I necessarily disagree, but I just don't see the connection between atheism and some of these issues, at least not a strong one.

I can see how it can be loosely related to homophobia and sexism (both encouraged by religion, although not exclusively). But diversity? Social justice?

Also, I think it's a terrible criterion to be grouped by. Look, the minimum we should all be interested in (at least in my view) is getting religion to stay out of politics, that is something that I think is in the interests of most atheists (not all obviously, you still have crazies like S.E. Cupp who think the Christian Right is the best thing ever made since sliced bread) beyond that, the more you add into this "movement" (if you want to call it that) the more you will turn people away.

For one thing, define diversity. In the absence of a precise definition I can only speculate WTF that means, from something I can agree with (equal rights for people of all races, religions, gender, sexual orientation) to "hey let's actively promote mass immigration from countries where many people don't share any of our values" (which obviously I don't agree with, fuck that).

Now social justice is even more problematic. It involves things like progressive taxation, income redistribution and sometimes even property redistribution. None of these things are any bit even remotely related to atheism and none of them are evidently the optimal path society should take. It's not set in stone, there's an on-going never-ending debate about these issues with leftists wanting as much as possible and rightists wanting as little as possible (or none at all), but PZ Myers thinks he's figured it all out to the point where anyone with a contrary opinion doesn't even deserve a platform in his "movement". This isn't free thinking, this is dogma.





Also the "founders" of this "movement" has shown their hypocrisy several times over.


For example they say the "atheist community" needs to be more welcoming to women. Fair enough. But see here is one scenario they present: A woman joins an atheist group, she quits because she doesn't feel comfortable there. Why she doesn't feel comfortable there? Because there are too many men in it... :roll:

I don't know about you, but we have one word to describe someone who doesn't like being in a group because there are too many men in it: sexist! It works both ways you know. Yet these people think it's the "white male privilege" (whatever the fuck that means) that's at fault here. Indeed, they already expressed dissatisfaction that the "New Atheism" is represented by old white men such as Dawkins or Hitchens. (Uh, HELLO? Did you forget about ZOMGitsCriss, young female???)

Then we have Rebecca Watson complaining yet again that people try to pick her up. :roll: Yes, apparently now asking someone "what's your name?" on the street is an issue that all true feminists needs to be concerned about. While Skepchick supporters can go on conferences and tell us how the male brain is really a female brain damaged by testosterone and her co-Skepchick can whine about a T-shirt that says "I'm a skeptic, not a skepchick, not a female skeptic, just a skeptic". Jesus Fucking Christ! :roll:


Atheism+ is seriously misguided. I don't see how anyone can take it seriously.

 

[australopithecus]

If you ever met Muslim feminist your head would explode.

 

[Inferno]

AronRa's take, doing a much better job of explaining A+ than I ever could and debunking some of the sillier comments we've had in this thread.

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

After reviewing their reddit, I was banned after literally doing nothing but engaging in discussion about a topic. I know that I have a BIT of a tendency to be a dick about things I think are right and hold to be true - but I'm going to tell you right now that I know when I'm actively pressing an issue and when I'm not. It's like wiggling my ears - I know when I'm doing it, but I consider it a born talent out of wit.

I messaged the moderator, who informed me that the reddit was a Safe Space and directed me to this paragraph:

Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space. For example, a feminist safe space would not allow free expression of anti-feminist viewpoints, and would typically also prevent concern trolling and continual Feminism 101 discussions in favour of feminist discussion among feminists. Safe spaces may require trigger warnings and restrict content that might hurt people who have strong reactions to depictions of abuse or harm or mental illness triggers.

I don't even know what I said - but clearly it must have set off the moderators' "HE'S GOING TO MAKE DISCUSSION" alarm, and hit the ban button on it.

An echo chamber talking to one's self is not exactly a place of skepticism and ideas.

 

[australopithecus]

If you can't see people disagreeing then you're not wrong!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

If you can't see people disagreeing then you're not wrong!

Here's my now issue:
They say "you don't need to be a member. It's a safe haven"

But in their writing, dialogue, and so forth they intentionally outline the reason they are excluding themselves from the standard community is that the community is sexist/racist/homophobic/too null. And they include skepticism of their claims that the community is all of those things as you being included in all of those things and part of the problem.

Then they intentionally lay out perfectly reasonable things that anyone would agree with to a very plain extent... But when you don't agree with their extremely-specific viewpoint and inquire about if their stance is correct, you automatically don't hold that stance.

Example:
Woman's equality.

Yes. Women should be treated equal to men.
No, I don't think we should send people to Diversity training courses because I read somewhere that statistics show a 10% larger firing rate for women and minorities - researchers think that it may be a subliminal linking of women and minorities to lawsuits through the training itself, backfiring. IT could possibly hurt many organizations with only few exceptions.

They'll get to the "No, I don't think that we should send people to Diversity training courses" before they just shut down the conversation.

Now, you're instantly in the same group with Sexists/Racists/Homophobes.