Atheism+, wtf?!

Galvasean

Anyone else thinking
?

Dades

Their use of an admittedly catchy name like "Atheism+" annoys me in same way it's annoys me that creationists hijacked a previously usable phrase like "Intelligent Design".

Why didn't Dawkins and co. think of this instead of their cringeworthy "Brights"? :pac:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

are they though?

they're a tiny tiny minority who are only being talked about because of how ridiculous they are. people will get bored and forget all about them.

Galvasean

Point of pedantry, but did Dawkins not say he detests the term, "Brights"?

A Primal Nut

What worries me is that groups like Atheism+ will become synonymous with Atheism and non-atheists will think of Atheism+ when they hear Atheism (like some people think of the fundamentalists when they think of religious people). Therefore, when I tell people I'm an atheist, they might assume that not only do I not believe in God but I also share all the views of Atheism+, as if they are the spokepersons of Atheism. I hope no group like that becomes mainstream, even if I share some of their beliefs.

If they call themselves Humanists, Secularists, Liberals, etc, thats fine, but the word Atheism should be reserved for not believing in God, and not become associated with any other movement.

The idea that Atheism itself is not organised is important for me and I'd hate for people to think otherwise.

Doctor DooM

I wonder when Atheism++ comes out.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Point of pedantry, but did Dawkins not say he detests the term, "Brights"?

Maybe to you but privately to me he said it was his first choice.

Gbear

Zamboni wrote: »

I detest that a lack of belief in any deity now seems to involve having set opinions on topics such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.

It makes perfect sense (in a nonsensical kind of way) for your religious beliefs to inform your opinions on those issues - religion has something to say about them.

Atheism has nothing to say about anything other than answering "God?" with "No".

Delirium

Dades wrote: »

Their use of an admittedly catchy name like "Atheism+" annoys me in same way it's annoys me that creationists hijacked a previously usable phrase like "Intelligent Design".

Why didn't Dawkins and co. think of this instead of their cringeworthy "Brights"? :pac:

who said he didn't? :P

Dave!

Galvasean wrote: »

Point of pedantry, but did Dawkins not say he detests the term, "Brights"?

Maybe he did later on, but he certainly publicly supported it for a while initially. There's a video somewhere on j00tube of him saying he quite likes it, drawing an analogy with the term "gay", etc.

mikhail

As someone who has served on various minor committees over the years, this is irritatingly familiar. Stick three humans in a room, and sooner or later they'll form into between two and seven factions.

Squarewave

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I wonder when Atheism++ comes out.

I always thought atheism would really benefit from supporting object-orientation.

Doctor DooM

Squarewave wrote: »

I always thought atheism would really benefit from supporting object-orientation.

Is atheism a sub class of feminism, or feminism a sub class of atheism?

mikhail

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Is atheism a sub class of feminism, or feminism a sub class of atheism?

As a child class* of atheism, Atheists+ exhibits polymorphism by treating socio-political issues as if they were religious.

Which is funny, because they seem to me to be behaving much like children.

Dave!

I propose a new Atheism movement called $atheism = $atheism + 1;

It's not as catchy, granted...

Rev Hellfire

Dave! wrote: »

I propose a new Atheism movement called $atheism = $atheism + 1;

It's not as catchy, granted...

++atheism, its more efficient.

equivariant

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

++atheism, its more efficient.

Goddammit - now I have to know C++ as well as be feminist, liberal, pro-choice, left wing, pro same sex marriage. Where will it all end?

Zamboni

Gbear wrote: »

It makes perfect sense (in a nonsensical kind of way) for your religious beliefs to inform your opinions on those issues - religion has something to say about them.

Atheism has nothing to say about anything other than answering "God?" with "No".

And...

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

++atheism, its more efficient.

Yes, but it may have unintended side-effects.

And, removing the "++", isn't "C++0x" just so terribly male-sexed?

mikhail wrote: »

As a child class* of atheism, Atheists+ exhibits polymorphism by treating socio-political issues as if they were religious.

I'd be quite reluctant to declare them friends, though.

Sin City

Dave! wrote: »

I propose a new Atheism movement called $atheism = $atheism + 1;

It's not as catchy, granted...

I propose the hands up if you dont believe in God movement ,either dont believe in God or GTFO ∞2

Rev Hellfire

equivariant wrote: »

Goddammit - now I have to know C++ as well as be feminist, liberal, pro-choice, left wing, pro same sex marriage. Where will it all end?

If you're not with us you're against us... another name for the death camps.

Gregor Samsa

So am I Atheist+ or Atheist-? Is there an online test I can do to figure it out? I have a beard. That makes me A+, right? Right???

Solair

They really need to consider perhaps calling themselves something else. Atheism isn't a set of philosophies or political view points. It's just simply not believing in a deity / system of deities.

Atheism+ sounds more like a political movement / social movement to me.

zenbuffy

I've mostly been staying out of the debate on twitter and blogs, because it's all a bit too nasty, with a lot of namecalling and bluster, and little else going for it. I posted a few brief tweets pointing out that instead of having to be "me, Atheist+" or "me, Atheist++good", I'd just try to be "me, tries to be good person who happens to also not believe in god", and they were retweeted a fair bit, so I guess there's plenty around who can't quite understand all the fuss.

The thing is, I think that many atheists are also politically and socially liberal in that they support things such as abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. but not supporting these things doesn't make you a "bad" atheist. All atheism is is not believing in god. There are groups which also choose to campaign for a secular state, for abortion rights, for LGBT rights, etc. and that's great, because those are things I support too, but my support of them isn't contingent on, or because of my atheism. If a majority of atheists supported social and political policies completely opposite to my own, I'd still be an atheist, because I still wouldn't believe in god, and last I checked, that's the only thing that qualifies one as an atheist.

Atheism + seems to be a mishmash of "lack of belief in deities" and some other (seemingly) fairly random social policy which suits the debate of the hour, namely feminism in skepticism, and if it were simply that atheists wanted to also campaign for social change, I would applaud it, but I suspect that the sentiment at the heart of it is closer to "I'm an atheist liberal, and I don't want to be the same label as someone who doesn't think the same as me".

Improbable

Solair wrote: »

Atheism+ sounds more like a political movement / social movement to me.

That's because it explicitly is.

Sin City

How about Atheisim squared

Solair

Given that they're in America shouldn't they call themselves something like the Coffee Pods or some other warm-beverage related name to counteract the Teabaggers.

Improbable

Solair wrote: »

Given that they're in America shouldn't they call themselves something like the Coffee Pods or some other warm-beverage related name to counteract the Teabaggers.

If they are in America, aren't they going to cause harm to feminism by associating it with atheism?

Solair

In some places perhaps.

On a parallel issue here in Ireland, I actually think we have a major issue with Atheism Ireland being the only voice for secularism.

We actually need something like "Secular Ireland" as the problem is that conservative, establishment religious organisations try to confuse the issue by equating secularism to atheism.

There's also a lot of genuine confusion amongst general public and even some media outlets when it comes to what secularism actually is vs what atheism actually is.

In reality, one can be an atheist, an agnostic or even a very religious person and still be totally secular in your political / social attitudes.

Secularism being simply a division between religious beliefs / church and state.

Does being Atheist+ affect eligibility to donate blood?