Atheism+, wtf?!

Otacon

Sponge25 wrote: »

The problem I have with Athiest is they complain so much about Christians ramming Christian ideology down their throat when Athiests are just as bad if not worse.

By all means, be Athiest but keep it too yourself.

Ofcourse we can discuss it here etc and debate it but in person don't constantly try too ruin someones beliefs just like you wouldn't appreciate them trying to make you believe!

Is their a God? Almost certainly not but I don't consider myself Athiest, I consider the question so annoying I don't apply any term to myself. If you call yourself an athiest and are always talking about it, you apply huge importance to religion just like a Christian, cool you're Athiest, just forget about it!

Anyone know what I mean!?

Athiesm to me is like a religion without a deity!

/looks at post

/looks at thread title

Improbable

Kooli wrote: »

Just on this point, I think that's standard practice on many sites like this that are anti-oppression and supposed to provide a 'safe space'. Any site with that type of agenda will attract people who will flood every thread to argue the central tenets of the group or of social justice in general (the worst of which been the 'white men are actually the most discriminated against group' lot). So it is easier for those involved to have an education/FAQ section (like a charter, but it has to be more in depth because these are usually really complex issues) to point someone to instead of derailing every discussion with 'education'.

Having said that, I haven't actually looked at this site. But I do know this is a standard practice that often works quite well.

If a forum doesn't allow for dissenting opinions, it's not an arena for discussion, it's a mouthpiece for pushing forward a particular agenda. Given the comments of you're either with us or you're an asshole, it seems somewhat evident that rather than looking for a safe place to have a discussion, the interest is more so in pushing that particular agenda or group of agendas.

robindch

Sponge25 wrote: »

By all means, be Athiest but keep it too yourself.

This thread is all about how some atheists relate to other atheists.

Sponge25 wrote: »

Athiesm to me is like a religion without a deity!

Got it in one, really.

Otherwise, well, I hope your next post actually contributes something

Kooli

Improbable wrote: »

If a forum doesn't allow for dissenting opinions, it's not an arena for discussion, it's a mouthpiece for pushing forward a particular agenda. Given the comments of you're either with us or you're an asshole, it seems somewhat evident that rather than looking for a safe place to have a discussion, the interest is more so in pushing that particular agenda or group of agendas.

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a mouthpiece for pushing forward an agenda, because as was said above they will be discussing loads of different topics related to skepticism and atheism.
But I think they have every right to decide the boundaries of that discussion, which I imagine about having a feminist/equality/social justice perspective or lens. And people who aren't interested in that type of discussion aren't welcome.

When any group or blog takes a feminist/equality/social justice perspective (let's just call it anti-kyriarchy), it will always attract huge amounts of people to try and dismantle it and argue every point - from the obviously misogynistic/racist/homophobic to the well-meaning but equally difficult groups who simply don't recognise privilege or oppression exist and don't want them challenged. Without strict boundaries, it's really really easy for every single discussion to be derailed by these people (who are by there very nature often speaking from a position of privilege and entitlement).

In my experience, they operate differently to normal blogs or groups. I don't really see a problem with that though. The problem is that there is a need for them to be so strict...

Sponge25

Otacon wrote: »

/looks at post

/looks at thread title

What's wrong with my post? :P

MagicMarker

Sponge25 wrote: »

What's wrong with my post? :P

Probably a combo of it having nothing to do with the thread it's posted in and it not containing very much sense.

Improbable

Kooli wrote: »

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a mouthpiece for pushing forward an agenda, because as was said above they will be discussing loads of different topics related to skepticism and atheism.
But I think they have every right to decide the boundaries of that discussion, which I imagine about having a feminist/equality/social justice perspective or lens. And people who aren't interested in that type of discussion aren't welcome.

When any group or blog takes a feminist/equality/social justice perspective (let's just call it anti-kyriarchy), it will always attract huge amounts of people to try and dismantle it and argue every point - from the obviously misogynistic/racist/homophobic to the well-meaning but equally difficult groups who simply don't recognise privilege or oppression exist and don't want them challenged. Without strict boundaries, it's really really easy for every single discussion to be derailed by these people (who are by there very nature often speaking from a position of privilege and entitlement).

In my experience, they operate differently to normal blogs or groups. I don't really see a problem with that though. The problem is that there is a need for them to be so strict...

I don't see how you can say that it isn't a mouthpiece but then also say that people who don't hold the exact same views aren't welcome at all...

I haven't been there myself so I was basing my argument on the basis of Zombrex's point that if you for example try to put forward the argument that not all female oppression necessarily stems from misogyny, you get sent to the education section.

Your second statement is a false dichotomy and one that does seem to be put forward by a lot of the atheism+ crowd. Anyone who doesn't agree with their position is either racist/sexist/homophobic or is part of the priviliged section of society and doesn't want to be challenged. How about those of us who understand that it can be a genuine problem but that their arguments for it and the actions that they take are not the right way to go about it? You can't just put forward two opposing factions to your position and tar them with the evil/ignorant brush without considering that there are positions other than that.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

But I think they have every right to decide the boundaries of that discussion, which I imagine about having a feminist/equality/social justice perspective or lens. And people who aren't interested in that type of discussion aren't welcome.

I am getting really sick of this.

I am interested in equality of the sexes, social justice, equality of races etc but I don't necessarily agree with the causes, issues, or solutions that PZ Myers etc think are the causes, issues, or solutions.

These people are hiding their own particular opinions on issues as the right opinion on an issue. So PZ Myers will call his opinion social justice and all who disagree are now against social justice instead of been against Myers' opinion.

Myers etc have made their stance on issues and set them in stone. Any disagreement with those positions are not tolerated and deemed to be wrong or ignorant.

It's perfectly possible to disagree with many of these positions based on rational thinking and logic but Myers and co don't accept that.

It's entirely possible to disagree with Myers etc on, for example, abortion and yet have no religious reasons to do so. It's entirely possible to logically argue against abortion based on ones own morals. But this is unacceptable to these people.

(I'm pro-abortion before you start)

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

I am getting really sick of this.

I am interested in equality of the sexes, social justice, equality of races etc but I don't necessarily agree with the causes, issues, or solutions that PZ Myers etc think are the causes, issues, or solutions.

These people are hiding their own particular opinions on issues as the right opinion on an issue. So PZ Myers will call his opinion social justice and all who disagree are now against social justice instead of been against Myers' opinion.

Myers etc have made their stance on issues and set them in stone. Any disagreement with those positions are not tolerated and deemed to be wrong or ignorant.

It's perfectly possible to disagree with many of these positions based on rational thinking and logic but Myers and co don't accept that.

It's entirely possible to disagree with Myers etc on, for example, abortion and yet have no religious reasons to do so. It's entirely possible to logically argue against abortion based on ones own morals. But this is unacceptable to these people.

(I'm pro-abortion before you start)

I guess I can't really comment further because it sounds like we're getting into the specifics and I actually haven't seen any of his posts or blogs, so I don't want to be defending him when I could be totally in agreement with you on this issue!

I guess I kind of liken it to the Ladies Lounge here. That's a 'safe space' of sorts, although I'm not sure they'd call it that. Threads about men's rights, or sexism aren't welcome, and it's bizarre how often these rules have to be enforced by the mods. I'm sure loads of users could argue that those rules are wrong or unfair. But without them, women would simply stop posting there because they would be constantly shouted down.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

I guess I can't really comment further because it sounds like we're getting into the specifics and I actually haven't seen any of his posts or blogs, so I don't want to be defending him when I could be totally in agreement with you on this issue!

It really annoys me that he claims anyone who disagrees on issue X is a racist, misogynist etc.

I don't agree with Myers (or probably most people here) regarding the war in Iraq. And for that I would (likely) be labelled a supporter of genocide, a warmonger etc.

That is not a rational discussion. That is not reason.

The way Myers etc talk is that if you disagree then you are wrong and an asshole. As he put it himself.

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

There is an "Education" forum where people are supposed to post more question type posts, eg "WTF is feminism anyway?". This leads to a lot of calls on the Main forum from some of the more, er, opinionated posters to go to the education forum if they don't agree with a specific opinion you express (last one I saw as you had to accept all female oppression is motivated by misogyny or you had to piss off the education forum to learn why you are wrong for not accepting this).

Sounds a bit like reneducation :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csas5rAa0J0

Daftendirekt

Kooli wrote: »

I guess I can't really comment further because it sounds like we're getting into the specifics and I actually haven't seen any of his posts or blogs, so I don't want to be defending him when I could be totally in agreement with you on this issue!

I guess I kind of liken it to the Ladies Lounge here. That's a 'safe space' of sorts, although I'm not sure they'd call it that. Threads about men's rights, or sexism aren't welcome, and it's bizarre how often these rules have to be enforced by the mods. I'm sure loads of users could argue that those rules are wrong or unfair. But without them, women would simply stop posting there because they would be constantly shouted down.

Ah, but even in a forum like the Ladies' Lounge there's debate and disagreement over a lot of things. Imagine if a couple of posters got into a huff that the rest of the forum didn't agree with them on a topic such as gender quotas, set up their own discussion site and insisted that those who continued to use the original TLL forum were a bunch of misogynist assholes who wanted to keep women out of politics.

When in reality, they might well want to see more women in politics, but disagree about the best way to achieve that.

I should probably add that I haven't been following this fiasco closely, and I'm not taking a side here, but that's the impression I've gotten from reading this thread and skimming the other one.

yawha

I think it's dishonest to claim that "Atheism" doesn't have any meaning or connotations beyond a lack of belief in gods.

I mean, personally I think it is a little annoying that this is the case, but the reality of the situation is that atheism, especially online western atheism, has a culture, a demographic, and a wide range of themes associated with it. There are most certainly online communities and movements built on atheism which rally under the banner of "atheism", not anything else.

As such, I don't think it's all that shocking or inappropriate for another movement, with an ideology beyond a raw lack of belief in gods, to form as an "atheist" group.

Rev Hellfire

yawha wrote: »

I think it's dishonest to claim that "Atheism" doesn't have any meaning or connotations beyond a lack of belief in gods.

I think its dishonest to claim that it does, you may as well state stamp collecting implies more than collecting stamps.

doctoremma

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think its dishonest to claim that it does, you may as well state stamp collecting implies more than collecting stamps.

You're thinking of Philately+. Stamp collecting is only 'proper' in anoraks and Coke specs.

yawha

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think its dishonest to claim that it does, you may as well state stamp collecting implies more than collecting stamps.

I don't know anything about stamp collecting, but if there were prominent stamp collecting movements with distinct features not directly related to stamp collecting, then stamp collecting could certainly imply more than just collecting stamps.

Galvasean

yawha wrote: »

I don't know anything about stamp collecting, but if there were prominent stamp collecting movements with distinct features not directly related to stamp collecting, then stamp collecting could certainly imply more than just collecting stamps.

Or would it just be people tacking on things they happen to like or believe in to stamp collecting?

yawha

yawha wrote: »

I don't know anything about stamp collecting, but if there were prominent stamp collecting movements with distinct features not directly related to stamp collecting, then stamp collecting could certainly imply more than just collecting stamps.

What?

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

An organisation could have interests in both stamp collecting and table tennis, but that it has interests in both doesn't imply one is causative of the other, or even that one is related to the other outside of the organisation. The only relation between the two is the organisation. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god; atheism doesn't imply feminism, or libertarianism, or an interest in stamp collecting. Atheism+ (TM) might imply other other ideologies, but your standard, run-of-the-mill atheism doesn't.

yawha

Atheist movements and communities are already heavily associated with things which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with atheism, such as science, skepticism, evolution, abortion, gay marriage etc.

I just don't see how Atheism+ is so out of the ordinary.

yawha

yawha wrote: »

Atheist movements and communities are already heavily associated with things which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with atheism, such as science, skepticism, evolution, abortion, gay marriage etc.

I just don't see how Atheism+ is so out of the ordinary.

Scepticism, rationality, science, etc., have at least a tenuous link to atheism, in that atheism is a result of rationality applied to the supernatural idea of a god. Feminism might very well be a result of rationality applied to society, but it still has nothing to do with atheism; both feminism and atheism might both be results, but they have no link other than that. By all means, a rationality movement could have feminism and atheism as core principles, but an atheism movement ought not to. It muddies the waters and turns atheism into more of an ideology than it is, one with core precepts and certain outlooks, outlooks that are beyond what the word defines. The folks behind Atheism+ should label it something else: rationality+, reason+, or something else, because, no matter how hard they try to force it, no link exists between atheism and feminism (or any other -ism).

By the way, I'd object to anybody associating evolution, or abortion, civil rights or feminism, or anything else, with atheism. Things should be kept simple: somebody should be able to declare themselves an atheist, and in doing so it should only make a statement about their belief in a god, not about their views on civil liberties. Simplicity of definition is key.

yawha

Sure, I completely see your point.

My point is that Atheism+ isn't the first time anyone's seemingly tacked on an additional meaning to the word "atheism".

The name aside, I think it's a positive movement, and don't really take issue with it.

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

Atheist movements and communities are already heavily associated with things which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with atheism, such as science, skepticism, evolution, abortion, gay marriage etc.

I just don't see how Atheism+ is so out of the ordinary.

Because things like science, skepticism etc tend to be common amongst athiests, but that doesn't mean they are fundamental aspects or unavoidable associates of atheism.

yawha wrote: »

My point is that Atheism+ isn't the first time anyone's seemingly tacked on an additional meaning to the word "atheism".

The name aside, I think it's a positive movement, and don't really take issue with it.

If it was simply a place and group who want to discuss issues where atheism and feminism overlap, or atheist/feminist issues from a feminist/atheist point of view, then I don't think many others would take issue with it. The problem is the group claiming that they are inextricably linked and declaring anyone who disagrees as irrational and immoral scum and assholes.

Cyclepath

yawha wrote: »

Sure, I completely see your point.

My point is that Atheism+ isn't the first time anyone's seemingly tacked on an additional meaning to the word "atheism".

The name aside, I think it's a positive movement, and don't really take issue with it.

The existence of Atheism+ is not really the issue here. It's the vociferousness of their denunciations of other bona fide atheists that is the issue. The last thing we need is a 'splitter' mentality diluting the Atheism message.

However one thing that puzzles me is that some of the people in question, e.g. PZ Myers, Jen McCreight etc seem like very nice people when you meet them. So I'm wondering just how much of this bad blood can be attributed to 'cyberdisinhibition' (i.e. the amplification of emotion and aggression that we commonly see online)?

A Primal Nut

Just to point out, now and again a religious person makes a thread here that Atheism is another religion. Of course we argue against that, and one of the main reasons is that Atheism is not organised; all Atheists have one thing in common; there is no big belief system or moral compass by which all Atheists are supposed to live.

As soon as Atheists start organising based on social issues or a moral way to live your life, then we are a whole lot closer to being an organised religion.

Soon we'll have Atheism+, Atheism-, Born Again Atheists, Atheist Liberation Fronts, etc. Ugh.:mad: Ok, thats tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.

Ickle Magoo

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Ah, but even in a forum like the Ladies' Lounge there's debate and disagreement over a lot of things. Imagine if a couple of posters got into a huff that the rest of the forum didn't agree with them on a topic such as gender quotas, set up their own discussion site and insisted that those who continued to use the original TLL forum were a bunch of misogynist assholes who wanted to keep women out of politics.

I think what Kooli is getting at is less about a hypothetical schism from tLL and more highlighting that the tLL exists because the behaviour of many on Boards about women in general and towards female posters was dismissive, unwelcoming and even misogynistic - and added to the natural demographics meant that discussion could be frustratingly lop-sided, even where terrible points were [are?!] being badly made...to the point it was decided that a discussion area free from jibes, tired memes and misogyny had to be ring-fenced...in those respects, there are some parallels with both the creation of demand for the Atheism+ forum and how they are set up to function.

Doctor DooM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think what Kooli is getting at is less about a hypothetical schism from tLL and more highlighting that the tLL exists because the behaviour of many on Boards about women in general and towards female posters was dismissive, unwelcoming and even misogynistic - and added to the natural demographics meant that discussion could be frustratingly lop-sided, even where terrible points were [are?!] being badly made...to the point it was decided that a discussion area free from jibes, tired memes and misogyny had to be ring-fenced...in those respects, there are some parallels with both the creation of demand for the Atheism+ forum and how they are set up to function.

None of the mods in tLL would ever, however, come out with the assertions the founders of A+ did about people who don't agree with them, though. This is what people are facepamling over. I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

It's not the fact the forum exists which is laughable, in fact it might even be laudable, it's the with us or against us attitude. I don't think this thread would have gone 10 posts without it, people would have gone "oh look, a secular humanist website with a leaning toward feminism" and thought nothing more about it.

Shenshen

Given that atheists in general have absolutely nothing in common apart from a lack of belief, trying to organise them in any way, shape or form must be like herding cats.
And as a person who shares the house with a few felines, I predict that this will unravel quicker than a James Bond plot.

decimatio

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...in those respects, there are some parallels with both the creation of demand for the Atheism+ forum and how they are set up to function.

Ickle, I haven't really followed the A+ thing but aren't there a lot of really well respected women who are opposed to Watson, Myers etc? Why would they be opposed to it if it was just a safe place for women to talk?

I don't know anything about tll either but my impression of A+ is that its primary purpose is to silence dissent from the Myers/Watson alliance's positions on issues. Myers in particular refuses to accept differing views and has shown this to be the case consistently over the years.

Myers thinks that Atheists should have attributes x, y, and z and anything else is wrong. Read a few of his posts on his blog about politics for example.

Read his insulting and childish attacks on Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Myers is interested in preaching, not discussion and I believe he thinks A+ is the vehicle for his gospel.

Ickle Magoo

Doctor DooM wrote: »

None of the mods in tLL would ever, however, come out with the assertions the founders of A+ did about people who don't agree with them, though. This is what people are facepamling over. I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

It's not the fact the forum exists which is laughable, in fact it might even be laudable, it's the with us or against us attitude. I don't think this thread would have gone 10 posts without it, people would have gone "oh look, a secular humanist website with a leaning toward feminism" and thought nothing more about it.

I'd agree with that. I think a forum/site with a true gender balance - not just lurkers that make up numbers in the polls but regular contributors - would be great to see/have/be a part of, regardless of the specific direction of interest...but the mud-slinging and inflammatory blanket generalisations which pretty much necessitates stating deference to one side or the other completely puts me off...especially given I don't align myself with either.

equivariant

Shenshen wrote: »

Given that atheists in general have absolutely nothing in common apart from a lack of belief, trying to organise them in any way, shape or form must be like herding cats.
And as a person who shares the house with a few felines, I predict that this will unravel quicker than a James Bond plot.

I'm not particularly enamoured of atheism+, but I'm tired of seeing this old nugget trotted out over and over.

It's plain BS to say that "atheists in general have absolutely nothing in common apart from a lack of belief".

Most (but not all) atheists have a generally sceptical outlook on life. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority of atheists that I have encountered fit this pattern