Atheism doubleplusgood

[Laurens]

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!!"

I'm being pathetic? Because I find it pointless that people want to start a special club with a ridiculous name that has absolutely nothing new to offer (its principles seem exactly the same as humanism) and the only reason I can see for its existence its for members of FtB to stroke their egos and pat each other on the back.

I am aware of the principles of "Atheism+" and I have been for most of my life, I'm quite happy to call it "not being a cunt". Atheism+ is about as redundant as it gets.

 

[Prolescum]

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!!"

I'm being pathetic? Because I find it pointless that people want to start a special club with a ridiculous name that has absolutely nothing new to offer (its principles seem exactly the same as humanism) and the only reason I can see for its existence its for members of FtB to stroke their egos and pat each other on the back.

I am aware of the principles of "Atheism+" and I have been for most of my life, I'm quite happy to call it "not being a cunt". Atheism+ is about as redundant as it gets.

Joe seems to have forgotten that you are automatically a member of atheismdoubleplusgood (assuming you're an atheist, of course) until you overtly remove yourself by contradicting whatever Richard Koresh says.

"You're with us or you're against us."
That might be a paraphrase, but it seems to some up some parts of the article and subsequent comments. This is what shows the post to be a spoof. Nobody can seriously hold these kind of black and white views can they? It's a truly simple minded way of viewing the world, and fallacious as well, so by definition anybody agreeing with it is making fallacious arguments and therefore is excluded. Neat.

This is a good example of engaging childish rationalization in an attempt to avoid admitting what you are.

You are either on board with reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, or you are not.

Evidently, you are not.

Now we know what sort of person you are.

Mission accomplished.

Sounds like the perfect recipe. . . . . . . .
For an orwellian nightmare, hubris in the finest tradition of greek tragedy.

Because advocating compassion, integrity and reasonableness is the ticket to an Orwellian nightmare and is sure to lead to a Greek tragedy.

Who believes that!?

Oh, right, douchebags.

Richard, you really believe you are exhibiting compassion and reasonableness?

The you are delusion.

Possibly even ill, and in need of counseling.

That you are "with us or with them" jive reminds be of the lying Donald Rumsfeld.

Yeah. Because defending compassion, reasonableness, and integrity, and continually denouncing people who reject those values, is just like something Donald Rumsfeld did.

Oh wait, no it's not. You're just being a douchebag.

I'll stick with the original atheism, thanks.

So, one vote for douchery. Got it.

There are dozens of other examples.

I would join the peoples' front of not being a cunt, and not because it rolls off the tongue like Roger McGough, if there were a choice between the two.

Fortunately, Carrier now joins the conglomerate of hubristic fuckwits[sup]TM[/sup], which includes such luminaries as Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

See? I can make up groups and include people I have issues with too!

 

[australopithecus]

I don't get the point of the plus bit, I really don't. "we protest racism/sexism/Daleks! Go superatheism!"....so? As supposedly reasonable people you're supposed to be doing those things anyway. Do they want recognition for being atheist+ not shitting in the street too?

 

[Gnug215]

Ok, I suggest making a new group.

Atheism-

Atheism minus!

It will be, of cuorse, atheism MINUS ALL BAD STUFF!

Who's in?

Oh, to be in this group you have to love ice cream, because ice cream is inherently good.

So there.

 

[Laurens]

Ok, I suggest making a new group.

Atheism-

Atheism minus!

It will be, of cuorse, atheism MINUS ALL BAD STUFF!

Who's in?

Oh, to be in this group you have to love ice cream, because ice cream is inherently good.

So there.

No the trick is not to say "who's in?" you have to say, "you're either in, or you're a douche"...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Just another attempt to be self stroking by claiming to be better than anybody else. Here is what I think, fuck labels.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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....

How so?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[televator]

Greetings,

How so?

Kindest regards,

James

You call yourself agnostic. Even though we conceptualize our non-belief in similar manner, which "atheism" covers, you've taken to a word that is more appealing to you.

Likewise, the blogger who has sparked this topic has taken a liking to "atheism +" even though there are other words that are more direct and accurate to encapsulate his positions + his world views.

Like I said though, I don't really care anymore. I realize meaning is more important than a label. You can label yourself silly, but as long I know what you mean, then conversational clarity is attained.

 

[Gnug215]

Ok, I suggest making a new group.

Atheism-

Atheism minus!

It will be, of cuorse, atheism MINUS ALL BAD STUFF!

Who's in?

Oh, to be in this group you have to love ice cream, because ice cream is inherently good.

So there.

No the trick is not to say "who's in?" you have to say, "you're either in, or you're a douche"...

Well, actually... since Atheism Minus is MINUS ALL THE BAD STUFF, saying stuff like "you're either in, or you're a douche" isn't allowed in the club.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

How so?

Kindest regards,

James

You call yourself agnostic. Even though we conceptualize our non-belief in similar manner, which "atheism" covers, you've taken to a word that is more appealing to you.

Likewise, the blogger who has sparked this topic has taken a liking to "atheism +" even though there are other words that are more direct and accurate to encapsulate his positions + his world views.

Like I said though, I don't really care anymore. I realize meaning is more important than a label. You can label yourself silly, but as long I know what you mean, then conversational clarity is attained.

I understand what you're saying, televator, however, agnosticism is not a redundant "-ism".

Agnosticism relates to epistemology - the nature of knowledge, and what we can, and cannot, know.

This is not the same thing as saying, "I don't know (whether God(s) exist or not)" - which is mistaken for a very "weak" form of atheism.

Given that belief, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the truth, (a)theism comes a very poor second to (a)gnosticism.

Further, given that atheism and pantheism/polytheism reject/accept (respectively) all supernatural entities, whereas monotheism rejects all-bar-one, the latter is (infinitesimally!) more probable than the former.

Dawkins, in the "The Poverty Of Agnosticism" section of his The God Delision, implied that all questions fall into his TAP (Temporary Agnostic In Practice) category, and none fall into his PAP (Permanent Agnostic In Principle) category.

This is not the case: depending in which cosmology we actually exist - namely, whether there's life-after-death or not - it's possible that we might not be able to answer the question of a putative Creator's existence.

As a result, agnosticism is not only a valid world-view - it is the default position.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[The Felonius Pope]

This whole Atheism +â„¢ thing seems redundant. Skepticism and tolerance of other people aren't rules for a club, they're a way of life.

Also, I was under the impression that Dragan Glas was Christian. I'm so confused....

 

[bluejatheist]

Bad sign when the only time I hear about FTB without going to it is when something crazy/strange/disappointing like this occurs and the news is spread. If I was part of FTB I'd be getting the hell out before the process of "FTB" becoming a metaphor for "Those People We Try Not to Associate With" is completed. Groups/orgs/media like AA, SGU, JREF, ACA and etc on their own are immeasurably preferable, as well as many of the FTB blogs if they were standalone and not part of a big club. Really, I hope people get off that boat and let it and the true believers who cling to it sail on into the whirlpool or whatnot in its immediate path.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This whole Atheism +â„¢ thing seems redundant. Skepticism and tolerance of other people aren't rules for a club, they're a way of life.

Also, I was under the impression that Dragan Glas was Christian. I'm so confused....

I still am - in the sense of following Jesus' teachings. I don't believe Jesus is God Incarnate (or the virgin birth, etc).

I'm agnostic regarding the existence of God (and life-after-death).

I've taken a step back from theism to agnosticism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[televator]

Greetings,

You call yourself agnostic. Even though we conceptualize our non-belief in similar manner, which "atheism" covers, you've taken to a word that is more appealing to you.

Likewise, the blogger who has sparked this topic has taken a liking to "atheism +" even though there are other words that are more direct and accurate to encapsulate his positions + his world views.

Like I said though, I don't really care anymore. I realize meaning is more important than a label. You can label yourself silly, but as long I know what you mean, then conversational clarity is attained.

I understand what you're saying, televator, however, agnosticism is not a redundant "-ism".

Agnosticism relates to epistemology - the nature of knowledge, and what we can, and cannot, know.

This is not the same thing as saying, "I don't know (whether God(s) exist or not)" - which is mistaken for a very "weak" form of atheism.

Given that belief, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the truth, (a)theism comes a very poor second to (a)gnosticism.

Further, given that atheism and pantheism/polytheism reject/accept (respectively) all supernatural entities, whereas monotheism rejects all-bar-one, the latter is (infinitesimally!) more probable than the former.

Dawkins, in the "The Poverty Of Agnosticism" section of his The God Delision, implied that all questions fall into his TAP (Temporary Agnostic In Practice) category, and none fall into his PAP (Permanent Agnostic In Principle) category.

This is not the case: depending in which cosmology we actually exist - namely, whether there's life-after-death or not - it's possible that we might not be able to answer the question of a putative Creator's existence.

As a result, agnosticism is not only a valid world-view - it is the default position.

Kindest regards,

James

That's just the thing though. I'm not making that mistake and neither are a whole lot of atheists who understand the meaning of "atheism." Being agnostic =/= atheist. You can be agnostic and still be a theist. "Theist" and "atheist" are inherently much more apt labels that directly address beliefs as they directly pertain to theistic discussion, so I could not disagree with you more on the utility of the word "atheist."

As for serving as a "world view". Sure, there are other words for world views... Atheism isn't that. A position of belief of theistic claims. FULL STOP. Invalidating atheism as a label because it isn't a world view... might as well invalidate the word "blue" because it isn't world view either, but we all know that that isn't the way the word works.

Edit: Shit. Thread derailed.

 

[DepricatedZero]

That's just the thing though. I'm not making that mistake and neither are a whole lot of atheists who understand the meaning of "atheism." Being agnostic =/= atheist. You can be agnostic and still be a theist. "Theist" and "atheist" are inherently much more apt labels that directly address beliefs as they directly pertain to theistic discussion, so I could not disagree with you more on the utility of the word "atheist."

As for serving as a "world view". Sure, there are other words for world views... Atheism isn't that. A position of belief of theistic claims. FULL STOP. Invalidating atheism as a label because it isn't a world view... might as well invalidate the word "blue" because it isn't world view either, but we all know that that isn't the way the word works.

Edit: Shit. Thread derailed.

I believe this is still relevant to the topic

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

That's just the thing though. I'm not making that mistake and neither are a whole lot of atheists who understand the meaning of "atheism." Being agnostic =/= atheist. You can be agnostic and still be a theist. "Theist" and "atheist" are inherently much more apt labels that directly address beliefs as they directly pertain to theistic discussion, so I could not disagree with you more on the utility of the word "atheist."

As for serving as a "world view". Sure, there are other words for world views... Atheism isn't that. A position of belief of theistic claims. FULL STOP. Invalidating atheism as a label because it isn't a world view... might as well invalidate the word "blue" because it isn't world view either, but we all know that that isn't the way the word works.

Edit: Shit. Thread derailed.

The problems I have, with being assumed to be atheist if one isn't a theist, are these

1) As theism and agnosticism are world-views - and, as you rightly say, atheism is not - being labelled such, when one gives up theism as one's world-view, is wrong;

It should be a choice between theism or agnosticism.

2) The "Atheist Movement", in attempting to make atheism into a world-view - by adding a plus after it - are admitting that they've been treating their atheism as if it were a world-view, and are now seeking to make it so.

I've been reading further on the FtB blogs where various individuals are explaining their reasons for supporting/joining the Atheism+ band-wagon.

Some have claimed that it better describes their predominantly atheist approach to life and/or that - although they're humanists - the new label puts atheism front-and-centre, and/or that their position is more than mere humanist, etc, etc.

However, there's already a word - and world-view - where "without belief in gods" is incorporated into the label and which encompasses humanism ("more than humanism") as well as other philosophical aspects:

Naturalism

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DepricatedZero]

The problems I have, with being assumed to be atheist if one isn't a theist, are these

1) As theism and agnosticism are world-views - and, as you rightly say, atheism is not - being labelled such, when one gives up theism as one's world-view, is wrong;

It should be a choice between theism or agnosticism.

My friend, this is the wrong dichotomy. It is a matter of theism or non-theism, not theism or agnosticism. In theory, your presented choice is to believe or to believe, since agnosticism can apply to theists.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief. It is the statement that knowledge can not be known. Agnosticism, when taken as a stance in regards to theism, simply avoids the question. It is akin to taking the stance of "with syrup" when asked if you prefer waffles or pancakes. It's answering a whole different quest (do you prefer them with or without syrup) rather than actually answering the relevent one. The presence or non-presence of syrup is irrelevent to your preference of pancakes over waffles. Whether you believe the knowledge of god can or cannot be known, is irrelevent to whether you believe in that god.

Agnosticism is no more a world-view than atheism is. Hell, theism on its own does not prescribe a worldview. It indicates the likelihood of a specific one, yes, but it does not denote a worldview.

I'm a gnostic atheist with an objective worldview. I believe everything in the natural world can be known, and therefore if god exists (which I don't believe) it can be proven. To theists, I say I will happily eat my words when they can prove their god. The lack of evidence is evidence of absence, as it were. My worldview is the cause of my atheism and gnosticism, not the other way around. They are descriptors of who I am, yes, but only as Black is one descriptor of a Street Light.

Worldviews are varied widely. There are those who will choose to define their worldview by atheism, which I find pathetic and wanting, and others by a deity they worship - which at least is based on something. Others will base it on a set of a ideals, or a realization about the nature of the world, a theory of zen or want for inner and outer peace.

It is very late for me, I am very tired, so I'm going to call it here and hope this was coherent and not insulting. Never want to insult you DG, you're too nice a guy.

Kindest regards,

Mark

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The problems I have, with being assumed to be atheist if one isn't a theist, are these

1) As theism and agnosticism are world-views - and, as you rightly say, atheism is not - being labelled such, when one gives up theism as one's world-view, is wrong;

It should be a choice between theism or agnosticism.

My friend, this is the wrong dichotomy. It is a matter of theism or non-theism, not theism or agnosticism. In theory, your presented choice is to believe or to believe, since agnosticism can apply to theists.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief. It is the statement that knowledge can not be known. Agnosticism, when taken as a stance in regards to theism, simply avoids the question. It is akin to taking the stance of "with syrup" when asked if you prefer waffles or pancakes. It's answering a whole different quest (do you prefer them with or without syrup) rather than actually answering the relevent one. The presence or non-presence of syrup is irrelevent to your preference of pancakes over waffles. Whether you believe the knowledge of god can or cannot be known, is irrelevent to whether you believe in that god.

Agnosticism is no more a world-view than atheism is. Hell, theism on its own does not prescribe a worldview. It indicates the likelihood of a specific one, yes, but it does not denote a worldview.

I'm a gnostic atheist with an objective worldview. I believe everything in the natural world can be known, and therefore if god exists (which I don't believe) it can be proven. To theists, I say I will happily eat my words when they can prove their god. The lack of evidence is evidence of absence, as it were. My worldview is the cause of my atheism and gnosticism, not the other way around. They are descriptors of who I am, yes, but only as Black is one descriptor of a Street Light.

Worldviews are varied widely. There are those who will choose to define their worldview by atheism, which I find pathetic and wanting, and others by a deity they worship - which at least is based on something. Others will base it on a set of a ideals, or a realization about the nature of the world, a theory of zen or want for inner and outer peace.

It is very late for me, I am very tired, so I'm going to call it here and hope this was coherent and not insulting. Never want to insult you DG, you're too nice a guy.

Kindest regards,

Mark

Yes, you're right, Mark, about my setting up the wrong dichotomy - I realised that whilst I was out, having posted the above.

Silly, given that I'd actually mentioned the other side of the coin. :facepalm:

The gods/belief-based see-saw should be:

Theism - Naturalism.

[With reference to the Atheism+ label/world-view, it appears to me that Naturalism provides all the answers for which the FtB bloggers are seeking. I wonder if Tom should be informed, so he can go and sort them all out... ]

Your point about theism not being a world-view, though, has slightly confused me, as - from what I've read, seen in YouTube videos, etc - it's depicted as a world-view, with atheism as not being one (as it were, a "lack of a (theistic) world-view").

I still contend that (a)gnosticism is a world-view, where each is on the opposite end of the knowledge-based see-saw:

Gnosticism - Agnosticism

Agnosticism, as such, would be a state-of-mind or world-view, whilst scepticism would be the methodology associated with it to discern the truth - if that makes sense.

Although the belief-based world-views may appear to be workable hypotheses, I think that the knowledge-based ones are the more important ones - and, since we can't claim to "know" (about gods or life-after-death), agnosticism tends to be the default.

But that's just my take on it.

I apologise to all for the confusion - and, perhaps, irritation - that my earlier posts may have caused.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DepricatedZero]

Hm. Well put, let me try to explain how I see a worldview. While agnosticism/gnosticism and theism/atheism are both parts of it, I believe they are not, strictly speaking, worldviews in and of themselves. The easiest way I can think to describe it is that a worldview could be described as a class in a program, which consists of various properties. It might look something like this:

public class Worldview{
private bool _theism = false;
private bool _gnostic = false;
}

so on and so forh. I think the default position for these is "false" or "off" but that individually they are only a part of what constitutes a worldview. A huge number of parameters could be describes, most of which default to off. The fact that a person is a theist, for instance, does not mean they have "THE Theist Worldview" but rather that theism is incorporated into their worldview. It describes the outcome of a single function:

public bool getTheism(){
return _theism;
}

I believe the ascription of theism as a worldview as presented by proselytizers is a convenient tool they use. If one assumes that what they say is correct ("my worldview is that I'm a theist") they can turn it around and try to claim that the opposite must be its own worldview as well. This is where the hasty generalizations about all atheists come into play, generally. Well, in the sense that theism is a worldview, so is atheism - because neither are. A worldview should encompass how you assess and address reality, your ethics, your philosophies, even how you handle emotions. It's not something that should ever be described by one true-or-false word.

For instance, lets say you're a theist, James. By making "theism" a worldview, you're inadvertently grouping yourself with every religious extremist and fundamentalist. Not saying you are, I'm actually not clear on where you stand in that regard.

Back to the program example, though. Interchanging (a)gnosticism with (a)theism would cause a runtime error. It's like a crossed reference somewhere. We're calling the getTheism() function and for some reason it's returning _gnosticism instead. Since both are the same datatype this wouldn't crash the program in and of itself, but it would cause the program to continue running on faulty data and potentially crash because it still doesn't actually know what _theism is set to.

I hope that made sense.

Mark

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hm. Well put, let me try to explain how I see a worldview. While agnosticism/gnosticism and theism/atheism are both parts of it, I believe they are not, strictly speaking, worldviews in and of themselves. The easiest way I can think to describe it is that a worldview could be described as a class in a program, which consists of various properties. It might look something like this:

public class Worldview{
private bool _theism = false;
private bool _gnostic = false;
}

so on and so forh. I think the default position for these is "false" or "off" but that individually they are only a part of what constitutes a worldview. A huge number of parameters could be describes, most of which default to off. The fact that a person is a theist, for instance, does not mean they have "THE Theist Worldview" but rather that theism is incorporated into their worldview. It describes the outcome of a single function:

public bool getTheism(){
return _theism;
}

I believe the ascription of theism as a worldview as presented by proselytizers is a convenient tool they use. If one assumes that what they say is correct ("my worldview is that I'm a theist") they can turn it around and try to claim that the opposite must be its own worldview as well. This is where the hasty generalizations about all atheists come into play, generally. Well, in the sense that theism is a worldview, so is atheism - because neither are. A worldview should encompass how you assess and address reality, your ethics, your philosophies, even how you handle emotions. It's not something that should ever be described by one true-or-false word.

But that is why theism is a world-view: the theist's way of assessing and addressing reality, ethics, emotions, etc, comes from gods. Their whole outlook on "life, the universe and everything" is viewed from the perspective of their God's/gods' (human-ascribed) definition of reality, ethics, emotions, etc.

Since atheism is simply "without (belief in) gods", the atheist needs to look to the opposing world-view - naturalism - on which to base their explanation of reality, ethics, emotions, etc.

For instance, lets say you're a theist, James. By making "theism" a worldview, you're inadvertently grouping yourself with every religious extremist and fundamentalist. Not saying you are, I'm actually not clear on where you stand in that regard.

My own position has shifted over the years - from RC to "Christian" (a follower of Jesus' teachings on compassion but without the divinity and miracles) - and has further shifted since coming here.

I'd now describe myself as agnostic - having become uncertain as to whether there's a god or not. I'm not the opposite of a theist (a naturalist) since I'm just as uncertain that there isn't a God(!)

I could argue either side - for or against the existence of (a theistic) God, though I think I've got a refutation for Deism.

And I don't think that being a theist would really mean that a person should be confused with a religious extremist - any more than a scientist would be confused with, say, Nazi scientists (those who experimented on Jewish children, for example, "in the name of science").

Although I take your point that there are those who would - and do!

Back to the program example, though. Interchanging (a)gnosticism with (a)theism would cause a runtime error. It's like a crossed reference somewhere. We're calling the getTheism() function and for some reason it's returning _gnosticism instead. Since both are the same datatype this wouldn't crash the program in and of itself, but it would cause the program to continue running on faulty data and potentially crash because it still doesn't actually know what _theism is set to.

I hope that made sense.

Mark

Yes - I was once a programmer.... many, many years ago. :cry:

And my twin brother's name is Mark....Hey! :shock:

PS - And you know that Atheism+ must be bad when Thunderf00t sticks the boot in and actually makes sense!

Kindest regards,

James