Atheism+, wtf?!

robindch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

[...] it's the with us or against us attitude [...]

Hear, hear

Ickle Magoo

decimatio wrote: »

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?

Well, you could argue like your swathes of women who enjoy midnight lift propositions there are also plenty female posters who liked Boards just as it was and who don't like tLL...for me it comes down to accepting people now want a choice/have a choice and then it's just a matter of the age old arguments re setting up a specifically designed forum Vs forcing people to make do with the status quo/change how existing forums operate from the inside.

I don't think a forum who's primary function is to throw mud is going to last very long - a forum which genuinely addresses the gender imbalance and how that affects some discussion areas I think would do rather well...

doctoremma

equivariant wrote: »

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

It's not BS, it's true.

Atheists cannot be grouped, with any certainty, under any category other than their lack of belief.

Whether you can predict, or say it more likely, that an atheist is a feminist is a different matter.

TPD

I've typed and retyped an answer here a few times, but it's pointless restating what's been said already and more eloquently than I've just realised I'm able to.
Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. Anything else is, well, something else.

Tomk1

Kooli wrote: »

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.

In the LL you can have a topic on atheism, but haven't seen any topics in AA on ''men's rights'' or ''women's rights'' note (i believe in being equal to both sexes, whilst respecting the differences)
So can't see the need for say a LL+AA forum or international-group, where men are basically barred from, or treated inferior or labelled as ''misogyny'' under the guise of equality of the sexes, just comes across as (new word I have learnt and like to forget) ''mysandy''

n' I thought religion was BS, unfortunatly I can't opt out of being an Atheist.

Ickle Magoo

Tomk1 wrote: »

...but haven't seen any topics in AA on ''men's rights'' or ''women's rights''

While perhaps not specifically, just a quick look down the front page and there are numerous threads on abortion and a couple on Islam/burkas...topics which are about or at least many view the attitudes/laws around such topics as affecting/impinging on women's rights...

Zamboni

Whole thing reminds me of Atheist Ireland.
I remember attending the early formation meetings of AI and looking around the hotel meeting room and thinking what the hell am I doing here.
Atheism is not something to organise a group around. A group needs a purpose, not just a common ground.
You don't see associations of people who like the colour blue, for instance.
It is also why AI is having problems establishing what it is, what it's purpose is and who it speaks for.

I would much rather a secular organsation with no tangential humanist, atheistic or random "social justice" issues clouding it's one clear goal of acheiving a secular state.

pauldla

Zamboni wrote: »

Whole thing reminds me of Atheist Ireland.
I remember attending the early formation meetings of AI and looking around the hotel meeting room and thinking what the hell am I doing here.
Atheism is not something to organise a group around. A group needs a purpose, not just a common ground.
You don't see associations of people who like the colour blue, for instance.
It is also why AI is having problems establishing what it is, what it's purpose is and who it speaks for.

I would much rather a secular organsation with no tangential humanist, atheistic or random "social justice" issues clouding it's one clear goal of acheiving a secular state.

Absolutely, I agree. Trying to organise around something like atheism is, well, kind of pointless. By all means organise groups around issues, and add the mighty Hammer of Atheism to the arsenal, but I really think anything like Atheism+ is doomed to failure; it already seems to be falling far short of its ideals.

I quite like blue, actually. Now which shade of blue, that's a different question.

Dades

equivariant wrote: »

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

You mean the vast majority of people who have declared themselves as atheists. What about all those people you've met who happen to be atheist and have had no cause or inclination to mention it?

You can't use blanket terms to describe extra characteristics of people falling under a simple definition based only on the vocal section of that grouping.

equivariant

doctoremma wrote: »

It's not BS, it's true.

Atheists cannot be grouped, with any certainty, under any category other than their lack of belief.

I completely disagree.

1. (Premise) The vast majority of atheists are sceptical in outlook (of course there are exceptions but I believe that they are very much a minority)
2. Scepticism is not a logical consequence of atheism

1 and 2 imply ...

3. There are categories independent of atheism into which the majority of atheists fall

Statement 2 is pretty uncontroversial, so if you accept premise 1 then you must accept 3.

As for Dades objection. Fair enough, I should say declared atheist. However, given that the original issue is whether or not atheists can declare themselves part of an organisation that concerns itself with issues other than non belief in deities, I think that it is implicit that we are talking about atheists who are self declared atheists. If that is not clear, well then I accept your point and I rephrase my assertion and argument above to be about self declared atheists.

Rev Hellfire

All points 1 and 2 provide is the fact the atheists can come to their conclusion regards the existence of god(s) from multiple avenues.

But declaring yourself an atheist is a statement about the conclusion you have reached on the single statement of the existence of deities and says nothing about how you arrived at it.

doctoremma

equivariant wrote: »

I completely disagree.

1. (Premise) The vast majority of atheists are sceptical in outlook (of course there are exceptions but I believe that they are very much a minority)
2. Scepticism is not a logical consequence of atheism

1 and 2 imply ...

3. There are categories independent of atheism into which the majority of atheists fall

Statement 2 is pretty uncontroversial, so if you accept premise 1 then you must accept 3.

I don't accept 3 as a given consequence of atheism. It may well be a given consequence of skepticism, but not atheism.

I am a skeptical person. This means I am atheist. It also means I reject homeopathy. I do not reject homeopathy because I am atheist.

If these people are skeptics, let them call themselves Skepticism+. If they are humanists, let them call themselves Humanists+.

If a member of Skepticism+ tries to assert that homeopathy has medical validity, let the other members question their credentials as a skeptic. That seems reasonable to me. If a member of Atheism+ tries to assert that homeopathy has medical validity, their credentials as an atheist are not affected in any way.

equivariant

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

All points 1 and 2 provide is the fact the atheists can come to their conclusion regards the existence of god(s) from multiple avenues.

It's not all that they provide. It is however a likely consequence of 1 and 2

But declaring yourself an atheist is a statement about the conclusion you have reached on the single statement of the existence of deities and says nothing about how you arrived at it.

agreed

I don't see how either of your statements contradicts anything that I said.

equivariant

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't accept 3 as a given consequence of atheism. It may well be a given consequence of skepticism, but not atheism.

I never said that. I said that statement 3 is a logical consequence of statements 1 and 2. If you accept 1 and 2, then 3 is a logical consequence. So I don't understand your objection

doctoremma

Anyone here use Reddit? There's a new subreddit for Atheismplus.....

parrai

doctoremma wrote: »

Anyone here use Reddit? There's a new subreddit for Atheismplus.....

http://metareddit.com/r/atheismplus

doctoremma

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in my answer to you...

equivariant wrote: »

3. There are categories independent of atheism into which the majority of atheists fall

I'm not going to deny this, although I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at that which is true and that which is stereotyping. However, this is not the problem that most of us have here...

To go with my easy example, I suspect most atheists reject homeopathy. As clarified, rejection of homeopathy is not a product of atheism, rather atheism and rejection of homeopathy may independently emerge when viewing the world through skeptical eyes.

I would never assume that all atheists reject homeopathy. I would never assume theists accept it happily (note: I'm not saying you would either).

If I were to come across an atheist who uses homeopathic remedies, I would think them slightly misguided regarding homeopathy but would not even begin to suggest that they weren't atheist. It is not a rule of atheism that one must reject homeopathy.

That is what Atheism+ is doing. Apparently, you can't be a "proper" atheist because you aren't also a feminist/etc. Whether it is true or not that "atheists tend to be feminists" is irrelevant.

Galvasean

doctoremma wrote: »

Anyone here use Reddit? There's a new subreddit for Atheismplus.....

How does that work? Somebody wanna fill me in?
- Note, I refuse to click into any of this FTB or A+ nonsense anymore as they have gotten enough hits from me and I'd rather they didn't get extra advert revenue on account of my actions.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd rather they didn't get extra advert revenue on account of my actions.

Adblock is your friend.

Works with Chrome or Firefox.

I'm assuming here that nobody in A+A uses IE...

robindch

^^^ Speaking of which:

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Adblock is your friend.

Works with Chrome or Firefox.

I'm assuming here that nobody in A+A uses IE...

I use adblock, but I still stopped visiting Skepchick out of the principal of the thing.
I'm sure they both know and care that I've stop. :pac:

yawha

From what I've read, the seemingly exclusionary "with us or against us" nature of Atheism+ is not endorsed by the group officially. In fact, there's not really any sense of officiality in the group at all so far.

It seems that Richard Carrier's comments in particular have been heavily criticised within the group.

Also, how does Atheism+ get any money for adverts on reddit? The mind boggles...

Daftendirekt

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.

Yeah, I'm with you and Kooli on that. I was trying to reframe the analogy a little so that tLL = the broader atheism movement and the 'schism' was a smaller minority breaking away from the larger one. (I'm assuming here that an atheist group would be more likely to spring up in a largely religious society, in the same way as a forum such as tLL would be more likely to spring up on a largely male-dominated site.)

But that's kind of beside the point. I didn't intend to comment on the necessity of a group like Atheism+. For all I know, Watson and co. could be right and they could be doing their movement a huge favour by setting it up. I was really just saying that if you want to form a splinter group for people who want to focus on social justice, then this...

Fellow Freethought blogger Richard Carrier goes further. When one commentator suggests "atheism does not have the luxury of kicking people out of its movement", Carrier gives him a rare old quilting in most splendid prose:

"Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."

...is not the way to market it.

doctoremma

Galvasean wrote: »

How does that work? Somebody wanna fill me in?

Not sure but one of the rules is that you aren't allowed to criticise the Atheist+ movement

Oh, and no rage comics allowed, which I suppose is a good thing.

yawha

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I was really just saying that if you want to form a splinter group for people who want to focus on social justice, then this...

...is not the way to market it.

Carrier has been heavily criticised for his words, at least in what I've read on reddit.

You have to remember that Atheism+ sprung up out of an online blog post. It was not organised, there are no official leaders, no PR team, their principles have not been officially established. Just because one or two bloggers take their interpretation of what it's supposed to be and voice it doesn't mean the whole group agrees. Hell, I could write a blog post right now extolling the virtues of Atheism+, and calling those not part of the movement assholes. Would that mean that Atheism+ is intolerant to those who are not with them, as evidenced by my writing?

Surely this movement should be judged by examining the wide range of commentary from those involved, not dismissed by a handful of cherry picked soundbites? Hell, the movement isn't even a month old. How on earth can it be judged in that time?

Galvasean

yawha wrote: »

Also, how does Atheism+ get any money for adverts on reddit? The mind boggles...

Er.. while I accept your point (as I don't used Redit so don't know much of its inner workings or advert revenue stream), that is a terrible misuse of a tinfoil hate meme.

mewso

There was one common trait I would have assumed all Atheists shared before this + malarkey. An ability to have a rational discussion on any subject matter and well I was wrong.

I am so amazed at Myers I keep expecting him to do a Holly and say "Jape of the Century".

Galvasean

mewso wrote: »

There was one common trait I would have assumed all Atheists shared before this + malarkey. An ability to have a rational discussion on any subject matter and well I was wrong.

I've met atheists who believe in the medicinal value of homeopathy so I never believed we were all rational :pac:

Daftendirekt

yawha wrote: »

Carrier has been heavily criticised for his words, at least in what I've read on reddit.

You have to remember that Atheism+ sprung up out of an online blog post. It was not organised, there are no official leaders, no PR team, their principles have not been officially established. Just because one or two bloggers take their interpretation of what it's supposed to be and voice it doesn't mean the whole group agrees. Hell, I could write a blog post right now extolling the virtues of Atheism+, and calling those not part of the movement assholes. Would that mean that Atheism+ is intolerant to those who are not with them, as evidenced by my writing?

Surely this movement should be judged by examining the wide range of commentary from those involved, not dismissed by a handful of cherry picked soundbites? Hell, the movement isn't even a month old. How on earth can it be judged in that time?

This is a fair enough point.

Like I said I haven't really been following this thing all that closely. I've heard some aggression from the Atheism+ side, but admittedly the other side could be as bad or worse.

Suppose that's just the danger of jumping into a debate without all the facts!

Zamboni

Atheism+ is intended to be a safe space, and submissions that violate the spirit of that goal will not be tolerated. This includes harassment, trolling, personal attacks, and hostile posts alluding to ethnicity, skin color, gender, and sexual orientation/identity. Oppressive, sexist, ableist, sizeist and objectifying language is expressly unwelcome. There are ample other places on reddit to play those games, and if you disagree with the whole concept, there's even a place for that. Offending posts will be deleted, and deliberate or repeated offenses will result in warnings and/or banning.

Now that is just one inclusion too damned far.