Atheism doubleplusgood

[Prolescum]

Sauce.

We are"¦
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women's rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

A. Atheism and skepticism should embrace diversity (and not just be a bunch of white guys reading a bunch of white guys). In fact, we should be really keen on expanding our experience and horizons in that regard, aiming to learn as much as possible, and provide resources to help all our comrades in arms.

B. Atheist and skeptic communities should encourage everyone to apply skeptical analysis not just to religion, pseudoscience, and woo, but to social, moral, and political policies, theories and activists.

C. Considering the history of religion and how it has even warped secular life and thought in countries around the world, atheists and skeptics should spend as much time and energy deconstructing illogical and/or inhumane secular policies and claims as they do actively fighting religiously-based interference. We have to be as critical of ourselves and each other as we would expect anyone to be of religion, so we can be sure we don't make the same mistakes. We must police the rot within, if we are to stand strong against our foes without.

D. In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.

Please read the article in full

I'm sure many here can guess my view on this, so I will refrain for the moment.

Have at it!

 

[Laurens]

I don't need to adopt a pathetic title that makes atheism sound like a flu remedy, or have Richard Carrier tell me... I already know not to hang around with dickheads (and not to be one myself). Seems like redundant bullshit to me.

 

[Epiquinn]

Hey, I'm starting a new atheist movement. We're opposed to rape and pedophilia. Who wants to join?

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

OK seriously, having read through all of the article and some of the comments, if that guy is defining what Atheism+ is then I want nothing to do with it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but he seems to want to split away from everyone who even slightly disagrees with his view of the world on anything. I agree with almost everything he says about social justice and equality, but because I'm willing to accept a (very wishy-washy liberal) Christian as treasurer of York Skeptics then it seems that that I'm not someone he wishes to associate with. What a counter-productive attitude. Good luck in forming anything but an echo-chamber...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think that this sudden interest in "Atheist+" - with extra pluses if thought necessary - is ridiculous.

It simply shows the emptiness of atheism and the "Atheist Movement". [Edit: And the fact that they're adding pluses shows that they're acknowledging that it is a "world-view"!]

Atheism is a nothing position - what's the point in embracing a negative? [It's just as much a belief-based position as theism.]

Skepticism is, at least, a reasonable method of approaching the world and life.

Humanism is a positive position - why not simply claim that as your "domain", your world-view, since it includes all the things with which most atheists would wish to identify and promote?

The fact that one might call oneself an "Atheist Humanist" is deemed to not be enough for atheists' egos? [Shades of Thunderf00t!]

Whatever Dr. Carrier's qualities as an historian, I don't agree with his - or the other FtB bloggers' - embracing/promotion of "Atheism+".

It's nonsensical, in my opinion.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The great part is that it selects out immature people who have a temper tantrum every time someone suggests rules.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

The great part is that it selects out immature people who have a temper tantrum every time someone suggests rules.

I don't mind rules at all. Not in the slightest. I don't have a problem with anti-harassment policies and am certainly in favour of equal rights and treatment for all irrespective of gender, race or sexual orientation.

The problem for me is that I don't define myself by my atheism, but by my skepticism, as the first is merely a product of the second. This guy seems to want to put put atheism above all other concerns, and more importantly to keep out all those he disagrees with. On the one hand he claims to want civility and reasoned debate but on the other he seems to be endorsing rejecting people with whom he has a single bone of contention out of hand, regardless of how civil they are. That doesn't seem to me to be a workable proposition.

 

[Prolescum]

I'm struggling to hold my temper (even though ultimately, this bunch of incestuous nobodies and their "movement" don't matter a jot).

There's one thing that really gets my hackles up, though (actually, there are many...), and it's this:

cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.'s back into the sewers and finally disown them

Atheism and skepticism should embrace diversity [. . . ] we should be really keen on expanding our experience and horizons in that regard, aiming to learn as much as possible, and provide resources to help all our comrades in arms.

I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.

How communications manipulate people is so fundamental to our lives now, it is a scandal we aren't fully equipping kids for how to approach and deal with it.

All this marginalising the sewer dregs (read - those atheists who, whilst not believing in gods, do not agree with Richard's ideology; let's just call them Jews seeing as we're now allowed to co-opt words willy-nilly), no true Scotsman bollocks, and talk of evil and grooming makes him seem more like a priest than my humour muscles can cope with.

He continually conflates atheism, humanism, freethought, and his own moral standards too.


Twat.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Richard Koresh wrote:
I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.

As I said - why not just call yourselves "Humanist"!??

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

The great part is that it selects out immature people who have a temper tantrum every time someone suggests rules.

I don't have a problem with Carrier's suggestions for how to behave in and of themselves, however I think these things are self-evident to any thinking person and therefore I find it rather condescending and pointless to have someone lay them out for me and then tell me if I don't agree to call myself a fucking stupid label then I am not one of them, and they are against me. Fuck that.

I already know to separate myself from dickheads who are unreasonable, dishonest and cruel, I already know to make my best efforts to be compassionate, reasonable and honest. I'm not going to stroke Carrier's, or anybody else at FtB's ego by giving credence to their "Atheism+" bollocks.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't have a problem with Carrier's suggestions for how to behave in and of themselves, however I think these things are self-evident to any thinking person and therefore I find it rather condescending and pointless to have someone lay them out for me and then tell me if I don't agree to call myself a fucking stupid label then I am not one of them, and they are against me. Fuck that.

I already know to separate myself from dickheads who are unreasonable, dishonest and cruel, I already know to make my best efforts to be compassionate, reasonable and honest. I'm not going to stroke Carrier's, or anybody else at FtB's ego by giving credence to their "Atheism+" bollocks.

Well, then I guess you select yourself out. What the fuck do you want, a cookie for being a "rebel" in the most pathetic way possible? "I'm not going to join that club that didn't invite me to join! That'll show them!!"

 

[televator]

Overall, I think the label is unnecessary. I mean how long before something like it would just end up getting hijacked by another parade of front running jack offs? Yet to begin with, I don't really give a damn... call yourself whatever you like. It's people themselves who accept their own labels, not me...I have my own to jumble with. However, what I find a tiny bit irksome is that there is at least one person here (Dragan) in this thread nit picking this label who in turn accept an inaccurate/unnecessary label for themselves....

 

[Visaki]

Firstly: It sounds like his marketing a trademark. On one of those infomercials (is that the right term?). "Hey kids,it's Atheist+! It's like Atheist but way cooler! You should buy it right now! All the cool kids do!" Ok it's done better and for (presumably) smarter audiance but it's still a selling pitch.

Secondly: It sounds like a train heading straight into the "no true scotsman" chasm. Not a member of Atheism+? Well you're not a real skeptic / humanist / atheist / rationalist then. And even if you are, we're a lot better than you because, well because you don't have the same oppinions as us and we're by defenition of Atheism+ a lot more rational, skeptic, atheistic and rational than people who don't follow Atheist+.

I might be a bit pessimistic though. I blame that on my finnishness.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Greetings,

Richard Koresh wrote:
I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.

As I said - why not just call yourselves "Humanist"!??

I totally agree. I can see one potential issue with this 'label' (and it may be why people either don't like labels or rename their movements from time to time)..... It has been demonized by some of the more strict religious individuals in an attempt to discredit the movement. Is this a good reason to abandon the label? I personally don't think so, but I'm trying to offer a potential reason as to why the label may not be used by some individuals. You must remember that some religious followers will try to discredit or demonize anything and everything that they deem to not be theirs. I think it may be a relic of 'politics' and nothing else. Here in the states it appears that some fanatics (be it religious, irreligious, or political) will try to demonize to push an agenda instead of working with the other group. Unfortunately, it's what gets ratings and attention, when what I think we need is a bit of solidarity.

 

[australopithecus]

I have an issue with anything that prescribes specific actions for atheism. Atheism shouldn't 'do' anything. Skepticism either. It's not a fucking social club.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Exactly. I'm all for fighting for certain things. I'm a member of the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and so forth - I happen to be an atheist, but what does that matter? Being an atheist affects my life in only one way: Religious people, and mostly just Christians, seem to think that I need to be converted and try hard to shove their shit down my throat.

I'm opposed to rape, murder, and jaywalking. I don't define my opposition to those - I'm not an Arapist+ or Amurderer+. I'm not even an anti-theist, I simply don't believe and won't abide bullshit. Atheism is a non-entity, it's a negative, a null, a boolean false. It is not a foundation on which to build a movement.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Are you sick and tired of being a dull atheist with nothing to do but post on internet forums?
Have you had enough of the plain taste of classical atheism?
Do you want to be a part of a new, revolutionary movement that will change the Earth?

Guess what? You've got Atheism+.
It's atheism, with a huge taste of douchebag.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I have an issue with anything that prescribes specific actions for atheism.

Good point.

I would consider myself to be an amateur astronomer. The action of taking my equipment out at night and observing and understanding what it is that I'm looking at would be considered an action. Do I do this specifically because I'm an Atheist? Nope. I do it for the interest of learning about the universe and everything that it has to offer...... Outside of the place that we inhabit. If I specifically limited my scope to what goes on, on this planet and only with human interaction then I feel that I would be cheating myself on getting the overall picture. I use this same type of mentality when trying to describe to people why it is that I enjoy hiking, observing millions of years of rock formations, and listening to the low rumble of a waterfall or earthquake (it's also damn good exercise). I'm trying to capture the whole experience as opposed to limiting my scope to what is strictly 'social'. Do I enjoy the social aspect of this human life? Sure I do. But I have found that the human interaction scope is a small piece to the overall picture.

Plus......

This dude is pretty damn cool.

:lol:

 

[Gnug215]

I guess this sort of explains why religions are so successful:

Even the non-religious people want to band together in a little club to pat each other on the back about their beliefs.