Atheism+, wtf?!

mikhail

Deleted User wrote: »

Does being Atheist+ affect eligibility to donate blood?

I'm not sure if the Atheist+ High Priests have made a pronouncement on the subject.

Doctor DooM

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not sure if the Atheist+ High Priests have made a pronouncement on the subject.

PRIESTS?!?! Why wouldn't you say priestess?!?!?!

You are obviously sexist and an arch enemy of int Atheism = Atheism +1.

robindch

Solair wrote: »

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.

Have a look at the Humanists:

http://www.humanism.ie/

.

robindch

Sin City wrote: »

How about Atheisim squared

"Atheism's quare"?

What about "Atheism Cubed"?

Improbable

robindch wrote: »

"Atheism's quare"?

What about "Atheism Cubed"?

Triple A?

fitz0

Doctor DooM wrote: »

PRIESTS?!?! Why wouldn't you say priestess?!?!?!

You are obviously sexist and an arch enemy of int Atheism = Atheism +1.

I hear their next mission is to get rid of the gender specific personal pronoun. No more sexist he's and his's. It's all she and her's from here on in.

robindch

Improbable wrote: »

Triple A?

It fits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFR06oru2vQ

dan462

fitz0 wrote: »

I hear their next mission is to get rid of the gender specific personal pronoun. No more sexist he's and his's. It's all she and her's from here on in.

They should take the Futurama approach, and go with "shlim" and "schlee".

Dave!

Couple more blog posts...

Some blogger says she's being abused, and so doesn't want to blog anymore

Couple of support posts

Rebecca Watson is going to fill the void:

Rebecca Watson ‏@rebeccawatson
Misogynists: you got 1 woman to shut up but don't celebrate too long. I'm going to get twice as mouthy to compensate. http://t.co/tv0z4DaT

Rev Hellfire

Woot! Twice the advert revenue then.

Kooli

I'm not sure what people are getting so mouthy about.

If Atheism+ doesn't speak to you or for you, why five pages about it?

To be honest, I identify a lot more with the ideas of Atheism+ than a lot of what I'm seeing in other atheist circles, including this forum and this thread (jokes about women getting the vote? Seriously?)

Feminists won't be told to leave their feminism out of their atheism. Nor should they be.

This reminds me a lot of the period when feminism itself was seriously shaken up and forced to look at itself by people from other minorities who were being told that racism was a 'side issue' in feminism or talking about homophobia in feminism was 'beside the point'.

There are a LOT of people who will feel more comfortable identifying with a group who are openly committed to inclusivity than with the hoards of others who joke about inclusivity, joke about women and feminists, roll their ideas and repeatedly trot out the line 'atheism is about a lack of belief in god and that's it'.

That's not it. People have a lot more to say on the subject. THis board is a testament to that. Pages and pages, threads and threads, going on for years and years about all the things that tie in with atheism. Not just one thread saying 'I don't believe in god'. 'Nope, me neither'.
And this forum has a charter. So there are things that are OK and things that are not OK.
But the suggestion that a feminist outlook be one of those things that are important is suddenly completely ridiculous? The idea that sexism be collectively frowned upon is really that crazy?
I don't buy it.

This whole elevatorgate has been like lifting a rock and seeing all the nastiness underneath.

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

Feminists won't be told to leave their feminism out of their atheism. Nor should they be.

But they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Feminism is one thing, atheism is another. How exactly do you incorporate "equal rights for women" into a "lack of a belief in god"? It just doesn't make sense in any conceivable respect. It's all nonsense.

mikhail

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what people are getting so mouthy about.

If Atheism+ doesn't speak to you or for you, why five pages about it?

If Bono created an Irish+ organisation and started associating Irishness with third world debt forgiveness (jokes about our own financial status aside), and claimed that those of us who didn't agree with his opinion of what was Irish+, I would think he deserved a kick up the hole. Well, a bigger kick up the hole.

To be honest, I identify a lot more with the ideas of Atheism+ than a lot of what I'm seeing in other atheist circles, including this forum and this thread (jokes about women getting the vote? Seriously?)

In all the time I've spend here, I've seen exactly one joke like that. It was ironic, delived completely tongue-in-cheek. If you can't see why, I can suggest a series of exercises to loosen the stick in your large intestine.

Feminists won't be told to leave their feminism out of their atheism. Nor should they be.

This is nonsense. I am an atheist. I will not be told what to believe by someone who thinks they're better than me and thinks they can steal my labels in the process.

This reminds me a lot of the period when feminism itself was seriously shaken up and forced to look at itself by people from other minorities who were being told that racism was a 'side issue' in feminism or talking about homophobia in feminism was 'beside the point'.

People who want to discuss atheim and feminism can do it if they like. It does not make feminism a characteristic of atheism.

There are a LOT of people who will feel more comfortable identifying with a group who are openly committed to inclusivity than with the hoards of others who joke about inclusivity, joke about women and feminists, roll their ideas and repeatedly trot out the line 'atheism is about a lack of belief in god and that's it'.

That's the definition. It's not one we want to see hijacked, especially by people who talk about inclusivity while displaying all the characteristics of hysterical exclusivity.

That's not it. People have a lot more to say on the subject. THis board is a testament to that. Pages and pages, threads and threads, going on for years and years about all the things that tie in with atheism. Not just one thread saying 'I don't believe in god'. 'Nope, me neither'.
And this forum has a charter. So there are things that are OK and things that are not OK.
But the suggestion that a feminist outlook be one of those things that are important is suddenly completely ridiculous? The idea that sexism be collectively frowned upon is really that crazy?
I don't buy it.

No one is saying what you're accusing us of. This is simply a straw man argument.

This whole elevatorgate has been like lifting a rock and seeing all the nastiness underneath.

Yeah, it's like people are... human. It's fecking pathetic how stupid a species we are.

Improbable

Dave! wrote: »

Couple more blog posts...

Some blogger says she's being abused, and so doesn't want to blog anymore

Couple of support posts

Rebecca Watson is going to fill the void:

How utterly ridiculous. If you're going to post your opinions on the internet, you have to be prepared to deal with trolls and idiots. It's the same risk that anyone else takes when they use the internet to blog, not a feminist specific issue. The internet would certainly be a nicer place if people didn't resort to name-calling and whatnot but for that, you need a standard of moderation at Boards level, where the moderating is impartial as possible and personal attacks are simply not allowed. The internet can be rough. It's just something we have to deal with.

As for the comment made by Watson, I'd be interested in seeing whether the abusive comments towards McCreight were because she is a woman or because she said things they didn't agree with. One is misogyny, the other is not.

Dades

Kooli wrote: »

Feminists won't be told to leave their feminism out of their atheism. Nor should they be.

I've got to admit, and I've tried to stay out of the whole thing as I have a distrust of bloggers in general, but I'm really confused. Having read a bunch of posts and explanations and I still don't know what feminism has to do with atheism.

My understanding of Atheism+ is that it's a new vehicle for feminist, atheist bloggers who got pissed off with the treatment they were getting on their old blogs.

I don't mind they've taken their feminism to a most receptive place, but what's with bringing atheism with them? This has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with feminism/equality etc.

fitz0

Kooli - I think the issue for most here (Certainly for me) is the sheer arrogance of these doubleplusgood atheists in setting themselves above everyone, the audacity in establishing their 'movement' in us V them terms and the denunciation of all who don't agree 100% with them.

PZ Myers has labelled all who don't fall in line as Asshole Atheists. That's a pretty asshole thing to do, but irony seems to go unrecognised over on ftb of late.

I for one will not be co-opted under a label of someone else's devising even if I do agree with some or all of their causes. How dare they deem me a less moral or less rational (this word has lost all meaning at this point) person simply because I won't follow them?

Kooli

Dades wrote: »

I've got to admit, and I've tried to stay out of the whole thing as I have a distrust of bloggers in general, but I'm really confused. Having read a bunch of posts and explanations and I still don't know what feminism has to do with atheism.

My understanding of Atheism+ is that it's a new vehicle for feminist, atheist bloggers who got pissed off with the treatment they were getting on their old blogs.

I don't mind they've taken their feminism to a most receptive place, but what's with bringing atheism with them? This has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with feminism/equality etc.

It's not about them having anything to do with each other, or having a causal connection between them. Looking at it that way would be quite confusing.

It's about being a person who is both a feminism and an atheist. And being told in atheist circles/communities/blogs to leave your feminism aside. That it's 'irrelevant'. That it's a side issue. That to talk about it, or to point out sexism, is 'beside the point'.

Asking feminists to separate their feminism from their atheism is what doesn't make sense. Because I am an atheist all the time. And I am a feminist all the time.

Being an active and involved feminist has the unpleasant side effect that you can't turn it off. The reason that's unpleasant is because you spot sexism and misogyny where others might not notice, and it hurts a lot. People who aren't as tuned in to feminist ideas don't notice it as much (which is not the same as saying it's not there). That's the nature of it.

So you can't ask feminists to turn a blind eye to sexism and misogyny where they see it. Well, you can ask. But we won't.

By the way this is my response to the suggestion that feminism and atheism are separate, I have absolutely zero interest in getting into ANOTHER debate about whether there is sufficient evidence to make any statement about misogyny in atheism.

If you look into intersectionality, you will see a history of the same thing happening within the feminist movement, when they told women of colour to leave issues of race out of feminism, or made them secondary issues.

A little tip about 'ironic' sexist jokes, and the invitation that I get a sense of humour about it. I'm sick of people making straightforward sexist jokes and then saying 'just kidding' or 'it's just a joke' and thinking that makes them suddenly into a cutting edge comedian like Louis CK and Stewart Lee (both of whom can very successfully be VERY funny about sexism).

So here's the tip - if the butt of the sexist joke is sexism, or sexist people, then great! I'll probably enjoy that if it's funny!

If the butt of the sexist joke is women or feminists, then it's just a straighforward sexist joke. Not ironic. Not subversive. Not 'tongue-in-cheek'. There is no actual 'joke' there.

joseph brand

I love to play X's and O's (noughts and crosses) and I don't believe in any god.

I call it, Atheism #

Now, where's me coat?

Sarky

You just have to add 4 little lines onto a + and it becomes a swastika. Just saying, is all.

Kooli

fitz0 wrote: »

Kooli - I think the issue for most here (Certainly for me) is the sheer arrogance of these doubleplusgood atheists in setting themselves above everyone, the audacity in establishing their 'movement' in us V them terms and the denunciation of all who don't agree 100% with them.

PZ Myers has labelled all who don't fall in line as Asshole Atheists. That's a pretty asshole thing to do, but irony seems to go unrecognised over on ftb of late.

I for one will not be co-opted under a label of someone else's devising even if I do agree with some or all of their causes. How dare they deem me a less moral or less rational (this word has lost all meaning at this point) person simply because I won't follow them?

Yeah I do get that. I'd feel defensive too if I felt someone was calling me an Asshole.

However, if you don't agree with the ethics/approach or message of the group, then I guess it's not aimed at you? This is aimed at people who do want to be part of a group that prioritises inclusivity and social justice, rather than seeing them as 'mission drift' or a side issue.
That's not for everyone. I do believe it should be, but I understand people who don't see any need for it.

MagicMarker

I'm an egalitarian, my new movement is Atheism=. Who wants to join me? All those other fúckers can burn to death until they die of it.

joseph brand

I have no problem with feminists. I think they're adorable. :pac:

doctoremma

Kooli wrote: »

This is aimed at people who do want to be part of a group that prioritises inclusivity and social justice, rather than seeing them as 'mission drift' or a side issue.
That's not for everyone. I do believe it should be, but I understand people who don't see any need for it.

I still don't see what atheism has to do with wanting social justice or inclusivity.

King Mob

Kooli wrote: »

Yeah I do get that. I'd feel defensive too if I felt someone was calling me an Asshole.

However, if you don't agree with the ethics/approach or message of the group, then I guess it's not aimed at you? This is aimed at people who do want to be part of a group that prioritises inclusivity and social justice, rather than seeing them as 'mission drift' or a side issue.
That's not for everyone. I do believe it should be, but I understand people who don't see any need for it.

But they are labelling everyone who doesn't prioritize inclusivity and social justice in the the right way that they dictate as an asshole and equating them to the people they have decided are supporting sexism and rape and all that.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Asking feminists to separate their feminism from their atheism is what doesn't make sense. Because I am an atheist all the time. And I am a feminist all the time.

I am a vegetarian all the time. But that doesn't mean I keep bring it up in circles or topics where it is usually irrelevant. Just because I see it as something as fundamental to me as atheism, doesn't mean it's fundamental to atheism. It would be rather ludicrous of me to create AtheVegetismarianism ™ and call every meat eating atheist assholes for not automatically agreeing with me.

Kooli wrote: »

So here's the tip - if the butt of the sexist joke is sexism, or sexist people, then great! I'll probably enjoy that if it's funny!

If the butt of the sexist joke is women or feminists, then it's just a straighforward sexist joke. Not ironic. Not subversive. Not 'tongue-in-cheek'. There is no actual 'joke' there.

In what way was the "This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote" post sexist, assuming it was being said ironically? There are jokes made nearly everyday on this forum about atheists eating babies, are these horribly libellous against atheists, despite being ironic jokes?

doctoremma

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am a vegetarian all the time. But that doesn't mean I keep bring it up in circles or topics where it is usually irrelevant. Just because I see it as something as fundamental to me as atheism, doesn't mean it's fundamental to atheism. It would be rather ludicrous of me to create AtheVegetismarianism ™ and call every meat eating atheist assholes for not automatically agreeing with me.

I'm vegetarian too. That makes us *proper* atheists. How can one be an atheist and not vegetarian, the two are too intrinsically linked for that. I mean, if you don't believe there is a god, then surely you must prioritise animal welfare and the environment, no?

#atheist+f*ckyeah

Galvasean

Kooli wrote: »

If the butt of the sexist joke is women or feminists, then it's just a straighforward sexist joke. Not ironic. Not subversive. Not 'tongue-in-cheek'. There is no actual 'joke' there.

Depends on which feminists to be honest. If it's the shrill, irrational, mouthy and 'holier than thou' ones that seem to be fronting 'Atheism+' then why shouldn't they be made the subject of fun? It's perfectly possible to be very much a supporter of feminist issues and still think Watson et al. deserve much of the ridicule they get. You can be a feminist without subscribing to 'big tent politics' such as the ones outlined in 'Atheism+'.

MagicMarker

Hmmmm.....

I've been flicking through various blog posts and reading comments for the past hour or so, all concerning Atheism+ and what its causes and motivations are. I had no real idea what this whole "elevatorgate" thing was, so I knew nothing of its repercussions through the atheism blogosphere.

Call me a cynical bastard, but this whole thing is nothing short of ridiculous. It's cringe-worthy. Most of the "protagonists" I've come across appear to be narcissistic, self-important, self-righteous, over-dramatic arseholes. They're so concerned with not only initiating movements, but commanding those movements, that they've ceased to represent what it is their movements are espousing, and probably care more about being the "boss" or important or "famous" than the actual movements themselves. They seem to flourish in the "celebrity" these little arguments give them. I mean, this whole thing is just a little "war" among a few thousand users throughout a network of blogs. It's all dramatics and histrionics. Do they think they're important beyond their little circle of adoring fans? The whole thing is like reality television, and they're like reality television "stars."

Bah... Anyway, I think I'll unfollow this. It just annoys me that a few people can become their ideologies and cease to be anything else, becoming so wrapped up in it all that they enormously overestimate their own self-importance. It annoys me even more that I'm now talking about it all. You'd think they'd wake up, go for a walk or read a book and stop bickering like a bunch of schoolyard children.

Damn, so I am chauvinist after all.