Atheism doubleplusgood

[borrofburi]

I'm opposed to rape, murder, and jaywalking.

Whoa now, responsible jaywalking is a service to the community.

 

[borrofburi]

Greetings,

Massimo Pigliucci has posted his take on Atheism+.

On A+, with a comment about Richard Carrier's intemperance.

Kindest regards,

James

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading it. Got me a good rundown of the situation, too.

Massimo is saying some good things, I think.

I too quite liked it.

 

[mick1le2pick]

I suspect that they will "suck up" more ideologies and become more and more exclusive and cultish

I dislike this, not because of it's ideologies per se, but because the concept of thinking the lack of beleif in a deity should also include various things they agree with.

It's like me saying "I am atheist, I enjoy reading, but I don't like root beer, let's call it "I Don't Like Root Beer Plus", yeah!"

My other problem is that the founders are pro-censorship adding to the cultishness.

 

[mick1le2pick]

I recently posted in the comments section of FTB under one of P.Z.Meyers topics. This was when i was first learning about a rift in the "community." My objective was to say that if we are a movement of anything then we are a movement of people that exist to promote critical thinking skills, resist religious influence on government, and educate the public on what atheists are. Given that we have very limited resources, political influence, and media exposure it is critical that we focus on those things specifically.

The pet issue at FTB is feminism and I attempted to explain why I think it is served by our cause even if it is not directly stated by name. My simplified explanation was that if we promote critical thinking skills that it breeds feminist perspectives. It's hard to think freely and critically and still think women should "know their place" and are less valuable/deserve less rights than men. Additionally many atheists are also feminists and actively work toward promoting both causes.

For the above argument I was labeled a misogynist. I was subjected to school yard name calling by the majority. I was told there was no place for me in the community. I was called ignorant. All for advancing a contrary position with reasoned explanations on why I hold the position. I even exposed any possible bias by stating openly that I was a young white male. Unfortunately that was simply used as a weapon against me.

Lastly, the negative responses were unanimous. Now I understand that I can be wrong and I may indeed be wrong about my above stated position but there wasn't any conversation or questions asked of me to produce a discussion. It came across to me that I had stumbled onto a cult and that I just told them that their dogma was bullshit. The feeding frenzy I witnessed reminded me of when I was a Jehovah's Witness.

They can keep their little cult. Frankly I didn't ever expect to see that behavior coming from those that label themselves based on their "free thought." They educated me on that at the very least.

That basically happened to Thunderf00t.

 

[Prolescum]

No it didn't.

 

[Prolescum]

I neglected to add our discussion on that subject. Here you go

 

[Prolescum]

Hmm...

 

[Laurens]

Hmm...

Wasn't Matt Dillahunty banned from there or some shit?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Hmm...

Wasn't Matt Dillahunty banned from there or some shit?

Yes, for having the audacity to create a "sock puppet" account to prove that anyone could go on the forum, have a reasonable discussion, and not get banned for disagreeing with the prevailing mentality. Didn't work out too well.

 

[Inferno]

Hmm...

I'm not sure what you want to show us with that...

Anyway, here's an excellent article that further strengthens my position. (Namely that some here are prejudiced against A+ for a variety of reasons and hone in on the comments of a few instead of the community.)

 

[Prolescum]

My love, I posted it because it exists.

My problem with it is the same problem I have with terms such as "brights". It is exclusionary and painfully pompous. It also fosters something many are trying to combat: fear and disdain of "the other".

Pigeon-holing does no one any good in my view.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Anyway, here's an excellent article that further strengthens my position.

Am I missing something? I can only see three paragraphs, and none of them add to your argument.

 

[Inferno]

Anyway, here's an excellent article that further strengthens my position.

Am I missing something? I can only see three paragraphs, and none of them add to your argument.

Maybe the "continue reading" button escaped your view. The following is the important paragraph:

The other major complaint is that A+ is fostering a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us attitude among its adherents. This, too, is easily disproved by perusing the A+ forums and discussion threads. There are many prominent atheists who choose not to identify with A+ for various reasons, and there's no chorus of demands that they be blackballed. Nor do we expect that every existing atheist organization will take on the full range of social-justice issues. What we do expect is that all atheists will treat each other with basic respect and decency, and that we'll do whatever's reasonably in our power to make the movement as welcoming and diverse as possible, without giving up the vigorous, sprawling debate over ideas that defines us.

My love, I posted it because it exists.

My problem with it is the same problem I have with terms such as "brights". It is exclusionary and painfully pompous. It also fosters something many are trying to combat: fear and disdain of "the other".

Pigeon-holing does no one any good in my view.

See above.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Maybe the "continue reading" button escaped your view.

Not so much escape my view, as won't load on Google Chrome. I had to use IE.

Now that I've read it all, my point still stands. The author is just using different words to make the same arguments you have made, with the only new insight being the experiences of the Atheism + web forum.The sad thing is, Matt Dillahunty and Skep Tickle (whose ban Matt was inquiring about that got that whole mess started) inadvertently proved Adam Lee wrong.

And as far as:

There are many prominent atheists who choose not to identify with A+ for various reasons, and there's no chorus of demands that they be blackballed.

is concerned, Atheism + has forced an atheist to resign from a leadership position in the SCA chapter in Pennsylvania, mostly because an MRA blog posted an article he wrote (which was not written for that blog, as Greta Christina has asserted). Skep Tickle was trying to debate those actions, until she was banned for "Bad-faith argumentation followed by obvious trolling." You see, disagreeing with the powers that be on the Atheism + forum is tantamount to obvious trolling.

I am a New Atheist and I'm a Secular Humanist. I should want to join Atheism +. To hear you and Matt Dilahunty and Aron Ra and P.Z. Myers and Greta Christina talk about it, I should join. But what is being said and what is being done are two vastly different things. In terms of Social Justice, SH organizations such as Council for Secular Humanism are tackling issues far better than Atheism +. And New Atheist organizations such as American Atheists are handling state/church issues far better as well.

So far, trying to combine the two has only created a Subreddit, Tumblr pages, blogs, and a web forum where words and phrases like "privilege," "intent is not magic," and "concern trolling," are used as justification to silence any "uncomfortable" discussion and maintain the masturbatory echo chamber Atheism + has established for itself.

 

[Prolescum]

See above

Yeah, I've read it. He begins by using a non-defined (non-existent) but all inclusive "atheist movement" before dribbling kool-aid down his shirt. If that's supposed to convince me that A+ is anything other than a self-congratulatory narrow interest group with delusions above its station, it failed.

This is a similar viewpoint to my own:

Pierce R. Butler[/url]"]Uh, Adam: My feelings about those things are why I work for feminism and against war, and happily collaborate with believers for such goals.

My involvement with organized atheism has to do with wanting a more reality-based world.

The two drives generally work together, but we're committing some sort of category error to see them as one thing.

You know me, my friend, I believe rather forcefully in equality, rationality, critical thinking and all the rest, but I also believe that attempts to force compliance to a particular mindset goes against the very tenets they espouse, (in the thread I read at least) and, of course, my own perspective.
I see little evidence that Richard Carrier's inflammatory blogpost is anything other than the norm in this group, less the oratory flair.

We've already seen people make statements like "atheists should...[something that has nothing to do with the question of belief in God's existence]" for several years, which I always dispute, and this group seems no different. Worse, really, as they intent upon promoting themselves as goodatheism and everyone else as un-goodatheism. I doubt it will be very long before, according to them, I will lose my Scottish heritage.

Here's a little thought.

There's a chap who is bigoted against a particular group of people (women, gays, Arabs, whatever) in your group. Do you A) try to convince him/her that their position is flawed using reason, critical thinking, and logic or B) shun them?

Which of the two are Atheism+ members likely to do?

Here's another thought... what do they mean when they say that Atheism+ is a "safe space"? If it means what I think it means, would I be able to put forth my views without hindrance in their club houses?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Anyone who thinks that anyone in Atheism + is not toting a religious fundamentalist mindset of "No True Scottsman" then, I urge you to put forth the following test:

1) Find an Atheism+ group that is not slated as a "Safe Zone" (aka "No non-atheism-plus allowed"). Good luck with that one.

2) Concoct a perfectly reasonable and rational topic of discussion regarding why some people don't agree with the concept of Atheism +.

3) Compare their responses, in private, to those of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims when interrogated why some Christians don't like to go to Church, or why people leave their faiths.

4) After picking up the pieces of your brain off the floor, come back and reveal your findings.

 

[Daealis]

I have a vague memory of the first time hearing about this. It was either from TF or Coughlan666. Just heard something about strapping more ideologies to atheism and calling it something else. Not interested. Just like with the brights or whatever other names anyone has given to try and boost the "image" of atheism for the friendly people amidst us evil and amoral ones. As long as it conveys that I'm not a believer of gods, that's the label I'm content with.

What is with the urge to rebrand? So atheist can come in asshole-form like every other group of people on the planet. It's one of the pivotal points that make free forums interesting. The more moderation and rules, the more of a circlejerk of the moderators egos it'll become over time. Imagine banning:
- Believes in something non-substantiated(gods, souls, spaghettimonsters, clairvoyance, horoscopes, which team is better at sports over the other, "your-mom"-jokes... take your pick)
- Things that are insulting to someone(so we don't look like douchebags). Meaning everything from trimmed and dyed dogs, to steaks, to religious icons and burning flags
- Speech that goes beyond the defined limitations set for that topic. No controversies, because someone might get butthurt. Swearing, for one, is one huge fucking issue to some.

Like spraypainting a turd pink and talking about the color. Sure, it covers up the shit, but also misses the substance of the whole issue.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Here's what I still don't understand.


Let's assume that it's not silly to make this new label and to assign all of these ideas to it.

What's the POINT? What do you expect will happen? Non-atheists+ will feel like they're not part of the "movement"?
Your ideology will take charge of the "movement"?


Truth is, with or without atheism+, there's really no difference. Bigots will be bigots, misogynists will be misogynists.


In other words, it's bloody useless.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I think what CosmicJoghurt is trying to say is. . .

Personally, I think it's pointless and silly. It's a way for them to feel exclusive. It would be different, imo, if it weren't the defining pretext of their group. I won't accept their scarlet letter simply on the basis that I agree with their views - and I do, for the most part. But because I don't accept a branding of their label, I am automatically, to them, against them. Well, ya - I'm against false dichotomies and a number of other logical fallacies.

I propose that we form a new group: Apteryx+. This is only for people who don't have wings, but also who like goetta, good music, and other vague and subjective points of interest.

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

Ok it took me a couple of days to read through this entire thread.... man all the fun stuff happens while I'm away working.

So, whenever I talk about actual atheism there's always a lot of double negatives going on, so please bear with me.

Even after researching and reading everything I still don't understand the purpose really of having atheist+...... It could be because my belief (lack of belief) is old school. I was raised atheist so I've never had a belief in any sort of deity(ies) I was never part of an organized religion that had any sort of agenda.....so I could be why I'm not getting it.

To me it seems like someone (or group of someones) is trying to almost turn atheism into a religion by tacking on a bunch of rules/principles/motivation/mission statement what have you.
atheism is a disbelief in a god or gods... period. no &, + or =
what ever else you are ..... outside of that lack of belief is your own thing.... are you a sceptic? a communist? a humanist? a socialist, a racist? pro-life? a scientist? a feminist? an animal lover? a bi-sexual? or a vegetarian? .......whatever.....it doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the fact that you are a non-believer....
atheism is not a religion. It's not a political party it's nothing.

I don't understand the need to try and tack on a bunch of rules that detracts from the actual concept of atheism.
Just like a "religion" all this dogma is going to confuse an already confused person who is seeking a truth and drive an individual away from the very thing we actually (don't) believe in.

How's that for clear as mud?
I realize that I might be one of the only females who thinks this is complete bollocks, most of my female friends think atheism plus is the cats ass.