Atheism+, wtf?!

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

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

I'm out.

Jellicoe

Ireland is always lagging behind

Atheism + , that's a bit 2011 now

Atheism^2, that's where it's at the mo

pauldla

Jellicoe wrote: »

Ireland is always lagging behind

Atheism + , that's a bit 2011 now

Atheism^2, that's where it's at the mo

There should be an athiest superhero group. They could be the A-Men, if such gender bias is permissable nomenclature, and when the evil Stigmato attacks and the cry goes out "A-Men, Assemble!" there is a hearty retort of "No! Why should we!" etc

Hell, I think I'll call Stan Lee now.

Jellicoe

pauldla wrote: »

There should be an athiest superhero group. They could be the A-Men, if such gender bias is permissable nomenclature, and when the evil Stigmato attacks and the cry goes out "A-Men, Assemble!" there is a hearty retort of "No! Why should we!" etc

Hell, I think I'll call Stan Lee now.

Indeed, don't forget their luminous leader 'Brightman', fearless and rational leader of the brights. Red spandex jumper and tights.

condra

I wonder what Michael Nugent thinks about all this.
I fear I may know the answer already.

decimatio

condra wrote: »

I wonder what Michael Nugent thinks about all this.
I fear I may know the answer already.

In fairness to Michael I don't believe he's following them but rather coming to similar conclusions about certain issues. I do share a lot of opinions in common with the Atheism+'ers myself but that's not the issue to me. The issue is the exclusivity of it all.

They aren't promoting rational thinking or skepticism, they are promoting their views on issues and any dissent is unacceptable.

I'm a huge supporter of equal rights for example, gender and race. But because my views of what is and is not an issue or what is or is not a solution doesn't coincide with theirs I'm willing to wager I'd be labelled a misogynist or even a racist as they have done with others.

Thwip!

So i need a support group in order to not believe in something? Where's my banshee support group?

drg85

Ha! I've never had a boards thread started by something I've tweeted before! I just saw this, and wrote up on it - kinda long to paste here, but do have a look and feel free to give input.

http://goo.gl/oSM1u

Does seem a little pointless to me...

bnt

Cartoonist Sara E.M. is slightly dubious, and I see where she's coming from:

I can’t help but see Atheism+ as little more than Humanism-.

EclipsiumRasa

So... what happens to any of Atheist+'s atheists if they join and then say something that goes against the established... dogma/creed/code of conduct? Do they get kicked out as a heretic for not believing in the right things they shouldn't believe in because they're what Atheist+ collectively believe they shouldn't belie-

...My head just hurts thinking about what this group is trying to achieve. Can anyone explain to me in nice small words that aren't heteronyms so I can't misinterpret a thing?

yawha

They have a website now, and an FAQ in which it's made very clear that what was said by certain individuals at the time of Atheism+'s inception, framing it as a "with us or against us" ideology, has been rejected by the general consensus of proponents:

What if I don’t want to participate?
Those who choose not to use the Atheism Plus designation are not automatically considered supporters of bigotry. An “us and them” understanding is implicit whenever a group of any kind forms, but the “them” in this case is not monolithic. It is composed of individuals and groups who range from the supportive but uninvolved, to the neutral, to those opposed on principle, to the unabashedly bigoted, hateful, and discriminatory. The “us” in this case are the individuals and groups who are interested in seeing what an association of atheists working against bigotry, hatred, and discrimination can accomplish when given their own spaces in which to develop ideas. This position should be understood as distinct from the “with us or against us” position endorsed by some early proponents of Atheism Plus–a position which has been rejected by general consensus. (Anyone who decides to do so may attempt to speak for Atheism Plus, but whether their ideas find any support with the rest of the group is a different matter.)

http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

So I'm not necessarily a bigot? Well that's good.

EclipsiumRasa

yawha wrote: »

They have a website now, and an FAQ in which it's made very clear that what was said by certain individuals at the time of Atheism+'s inception, framing it as a "with us or against us" ideology, has been rejected by the general consensus of proponents:


http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

So is the result of the general concensus to exclude the people who initially wanted to exclude those other people in a "with-us-or-against-us" kind of way? Or are they included, although they don't share Atheism+'s core values, which is the only unifying factor that actually makes Atheism+ a distinct group?

...

It may just be I need sleep and this will all be clear in the morning. Though I somehow doubt it.

EclipsiumRasa

Deleted User wrote: »

So I'm not necessarily a bigot? Well that's good.

That's nice.

...

Wait, what?

EclipsiumRasa

EclipsiumRasa wrote: »

That's nice.

...

Wait, what?

Up til recently I was a bigot according to the Atheism+ Shamans but now I'm not necessarily a bigot;

It is composed of individuals and groups who range from the supportive but uninvolved, to the neutral, to those opposed on principle, to the unabashedly bigoted, hateful, and discriminatory.

I can be hateful and discriminatory sometimes though.

yawha

EclipsiumRasa wrote: »

So is the result of the general concensus to exclude the people who initially wanted to exclude those other people in a "with-us-or-against-us" kind of way? Or are they included, although they don't share Atheism+'s core values, which is the only unifying factor that actually makes Atheism+ a distinct group?

Basically, it's a movement that started online rather spontaneously. It doesn't have a PR team. It did not have a full manifesto before its inception, and it doesn't even now. Certain individuals who liked some of the ideas they proposed came out and publicly stated a lot of things which were very divisive. However, the general consensus among those who support the movement have rejected the divisiveness of these statements.

Ultimately, it's not really about inclusion or exclusion. It's simply a movement within Atheism which people are free to agree with or disagree with.

EclipsiumRasa

yawha wrote: »

Basically, it's a movement that started online rather spontaneously. It doesn't have a PR team.

OK, so far, I both understand everything you have said and think everything makes sense.

It did not have a full manifesto before its inception, and it doesn't even now.

OK, now this is where I think things aren't making sense. Joining a mobilizing group before the group even has an ideology? I'm not going to say that doesn't make sense, but I don't understand their motivation to organise.

Certain individuals who liked some of the ideas they proposed came out and publicly stated a lot of things which were very divisive. However, the general consensus among those who support the movement have rejected the divisiveness of these statements.

Ultimately, it's not really about inclusion or exclusion. It's simply a movement within Atheism which people are free to agree with or disagree with.

This is where what they're doing doesn't make sense to me. Isn't atheism, as in pre-Atheism+ atheism already just people with which people are already free to agree with or disagree with, with no manifesto, and no PR group?

I need sleep. G'night boardsies.

robindch

yawha wrote: »

[...] a "with us or against us" ideology, has been rejected by the general consensus [...]

So, no more of this then:

pauldla

Deleted User wrote: »

I can be hateful and discriminatory sometimes though.

I'm very discriminatory. It's what stops me from eating stones.

Ickle Magoo

EclipsiumRasa wrote: »

This is where what they're doing doesn't make sense to me. Isn't atheism, as in pre-Atheism+ atheism already just people with which people are already free to agree with or disagree with, with no manifesto, and no PR group?

It's about having the choice isn't it? We now live in an age where if I don't like the discussion options on offer, I can join a site/forum that does suit me or even create one myself...

You could say the same about Boards - why not just have one massive discussion forum rather than having it divided into specific smaller forums which sometimes discuss exactly the same issues - but the point is they do so from differing perspectives/with a different ethos in mind.

Doctor DooM

I actually don't follow the whole thing too closely on line, but I saw this video from Peach recently which seems to sum up the whole kit and kiboodle, going into the whole "is it us and them or not?" thing. Her comment about thunderfoot (who has been one of the major targets of the more rabid A+ers) made me smile!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLHhSw6z8gc

Ickle Magoo

Hey kids... *shudders* Gotta love the irony re vocabulary warping

While I agree with most of what she is saying, she - and others who argue that atheist+ shouldn't exist because it's purely about a belief/lack of belief in god - are kinda [deliberately?] missing the 90%+ of discussion that happens in this forum - and I'm presuming, any other forum -between atheists or deemed relevant to atheists. It's rather disingenuous to suggest atheist forums or discussion between atheists is limited to purely the existence/non-existence of god/s...

decimatio

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While I agree with most of what she is saying, she - and others who argue that atheist+ shouldn't exist because it's purely about a belief/lack of belief in god - are kinda [deliberately?] missing the 90%+ of discussion that happens in this forum - and I'm presuming, any other forum -between atheists or deemed relevant to atheists. It's rather disingenuous to suggest atheist forums or discussion between atheists is limited to purely the existence/non-existence of god/s...

But that's not the issue, at least it's not the issue for me and it's not the issue I thought everyone else thought the issue was ... if that makes sense.

Of course Atheists talk about certain things not related to the existence or non-existence of god/s. Atheists can, and do, have discussions about politics for example. The difference with Atheism+ comes from the attitude that there is a 'correct' position to take on issues when it's entirely possible to take opposing positions for rational reasons.

It's quite possible to be an atheist and oppose abortion for rational/moral/whatever reasons. I don't think (correct me if wrong) it's possible to be Atheism+ and oppose it. (I don't oppose it btw, it's just an example)

It's quite possible to be right wing politically, be in favour of the death penalty, be against feminism, etc and be an atheist and be all these things for rational reasons.

But from what I've seen of A+ and it's adherents this isn't possible. They are promoting an ideology not unlike a religion.

Ickle Magoo

I know - some posters have spent many a happy post poking fun at John Waters, change the debate to abortion and suddenly they're singing off the same hymn sheet. But that surely means that there are atheists who do share similar outlooks on other aspects of life as well as their atheism and since the 90% of discussion is not limited to whether a god exists why not have discussion forums for those niches?

If someone wants to set up an alternative to the current discussion forums based on how many douche-bags post in the current forums and deliberately trying to right a gender imbalance and thus moderating accordingly, is that really something to get worked up over? I guess that begs the question if someone sees enormous issues within a movement they used to identify with why shouldn't they distance themselves from that and start their own? Is there something sacrosanct about the atheist movement and how their discussion forums operate?

Is it just the name that's causing the mental block? Atheist+was clearly a lame attempt at one-upmanship but if there's sufficient demand for an alternative movement/discussion fora based on the 90%+ of all that makes up discussion between atheists/on atheist discussion boards/etc, why not celebrate in having that choice? Nobody is making anybody else read/post after all.

Doctor DooM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Hey kids... *shudders* Gotta love the irony re vocabulary warping

While I agree with most of what she is saying, she - and others who argue that atheist+ shouldn't exist because it's purely about a belief/lack of belief in god - are kinda [deliberately?] missing the 90%+ of discussion that happens in this forum - and I'm presuming, any other forum -between atheists or deemed relevant to atheists. It's rather disingenuous to suggest atheist forums or discussion between atheists is limited to purely the existence/non-existence of god/s...

I think you're misrepresenting her. She didn't say they're not relevant, she says that surely atheism is an after thought in this range of ideals, not the binding factor. That while it should be a consideration, it is probably better off after the plus.

Also she's saying- much like most of us- that she agrees with virtually everything they say, but that the us or them is the thing which stops her having any interest- and what I find intriguing, as someone who doesn't have the time to follow this closely, is that the statements coming from A+ countering these seem to be half hearted. (I'm personally open to correction on that)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the statements about how they're not "us v them" seem more like dmage control than anything else

the comments on the various blogs when atheism+ was dreamt up were in no way inclusive or welcoming to anyone who didn't immediately fall in line with the group consensus

Ickle Magoo

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I think you're misrepresenting her. She didn't say they're not relevant, she says that surely atheism is an after thought in this range of ideals, not the binding factor. That while it should be a consideration, it is probably better off after the plus.

I didn't say she said they weren't relevant...

We're talking about a group of people who formerly posted/were part of one atheist movement moving to a different one and having the same discussions but from a specific perspective, I don't think it's difficult to see why they still use the atheist term, tho I think it would have been more credit to them to use a less ambiguous/obviously inflammatory title.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Also she's saying- much like most of us- that she agrees with virtually everything they say, but that the us or them is the thing which stops her having any interest- and what I find intriguing, as someone who doesn't have the time to follow this closely, is that the statements coming from A+ countering these seem to be half hearted. (I'm personally open to correction on that)

I haven't really seen any comments from A+, plenty quoting snippets of what has been said but having never rarely* visited the site, I'm sceptical how much they represent A+ and how much is cherry-picked to suit others agendas.

At the end of the day, they have their specific remit and sufficient demand for the site to survive and unless we're going to go down the road of proclaiming a one true atheism (:eek: where have I heard that before), surely they should be free to do that?

ETA: * I lie, I have followed links to it on here and in other discussions - just not read extensively/gone looking of my own volition...

Jellicoe

'Atheist Ireland' is the Irish version of Atheist+, so what's the problem ?

decimatio

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If someone wants to set up an alternative to the current discussion forums based on how many douche-bags post in the current forums and deliberately trying to right a gender imbalance and thus moderating accordingly, is that really something to get worked up over?

Is that what they're doing ? Because it seems to me what they are interested in is preaching their viewpoint, their position. Not having a discussion. A discussion would mean that people could have opposing viewpoints and from what I've seen of the Ftb'ers and skepchick, opposing their positions is not allowed.

I consider myself pro-equality over race and gender but I don't agree with a lot of what Ftb and skepchick are saying about racial and gender equality and I don't agree with most of the solutions they are proposing.

When they define themselves they specifically state that they are Atheists who care about X, Y, and Z. I also care about X, Y, and Z. I just don't agree with their take on X, Y, and Z.

I support gender equality and I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion about what the issues and solutions are.

They support gender equality but they are not willing to have discussions about what the issues and solutions are. They have already decided what the issues and solutions are and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong.

Rev Hellfire

decimatio wrote: »

Is that what they're doing ? Because it seems to me what they are interested in is preaching their viewpoint, their position. Not having a discussion. A discussion would mean that people could have opposing viewpoints and from what I've seen of the Ftb'ers and skepchick, opposing their positions is not allowed.

Personally from what came out at the start and especially taking into account thunderfoots exposé they seem more about driving those they disagree with out and ensuring they are the voice of the atheist/sceptic community.

If it was just a group preaching people wouldn't have got so hot under the collar, its the bullying tactics and attempts to censor that caused backlash.