"Atheism plus"?

Azure_sky

What do you lot think of this? I tend to agree with the causes "Atheism plus" endorses. I just don't like the methods they've espoused thus far. Most rationale people, who almost invariably tend to be atheist, will endorse these values anyway. I don't like this 1984-esque "You're either with us or against us mentality" under the guise of "Liberalism".
I'll stick with the regular old fashioned and minimalistic definition of atheism, thank you very much.

Delirium

Thread from last September on it if you're interested

Sarky

Is that rubbish still going on? Mother of God...

krudler

is this like sky+ ? pause and rewind blasphemy as it happens

Dades

koth wrote: »

Thread from last September on it if you're interested

Over 550 posts on that thread is probably enough... I don't think we need to revisit it.

Closing this before it's takes us down that rabbithole again (unless Robin or Jernal want to risk reopening... :P)

robindch

Azure_sky wrote: »

I don't like this 1984-esque "You're either with us or against us mentality" [...]

Nor do most people it seems.

Azure_sky wrote: »

I'll stick with the regular old fashioned and minimalistic definition of atheism, thank you very much.

A wise idea.

Dades wrote: »

Closing this before it's takes us down that rabbithole again (unless Robin or Jernal want to risk reopening... :P)

Robin's seen enough of A+'s self-indulgence to last many, many lifetimes.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Robin's seen enough of A+'s self-indulgence to last many, many lifetimes.

Apropos of a post earlier today regarding triggering, I chanced by Atheism Plus and found that the site is down:

http://www.atheismplus.com

Seems we outlived it after all.

Doctor DooM

You know, in a weird way, I'm kinda sad about that, even though I was one of the most critical here about it.

Some people obviously found shelter there, so for them, tis a little sad it all went mental.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

2013? How time flies...

YourSuperior

I suppose the problem in a nutshell seems to be about applying reason to philosophy/liberalism. Maybe it just stems from empathy overall. How we ought to live. And some of the population in the West are not really interested in general liberal values/liberal ideas of atheism plus. They are interested in more narrow personal goals for themselves or just reject atheism plus since they're seen to be dogmatic or intolerant themselves.

robindch

YourSuperior wrote: »

And some of the population in the West are not really interested in general liberal values/liberal ideas of atheism plus. They are interested in more narrow personal goals for themselves or just reject atheism plus since they're seen to be dogmatic or intolerant themselves.

While A+ might have presented themselves as tolerant liberal types interested in a better world, that's not what happened in practice.

The majority of the A+ group seemed more interested in playing the kind of hardline gender politics which alienated most atheists, male and female, and presented the wider world with the image of atheists as appallingly sexist - an image that hasn't yet fully dissipated.

No idea what the A+ founders are up to these days. Something more productive, I hope.

J C

Azure_sky wrote: »

What do you lot think of this? I tend to agree with the causes "Atheism plus" endorses. I just don't like the methods they've espoused thus far. Most rationale people, who almost invariably tend to be atheist, will endorse these values anyway.

... are you saying that rational people in Ireland are less than 1% of the population ... given that people self-declaring themselves as 'Atheist' on the 2011 Census represented 0.06% of the population?

Perhaps, you actually meant that most Atheists think of themselves as rational??

looksee

Whatever about atheists being rational, religious people cannot by definition be rational - which means based on reason or logic - as religion is all about faith and there is no requirement for reason or logic in faith.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Whatever about atheists being rational, religious people cannot by definition be rational - which means based on reason or logic - as religion is all about faith and there is no requirement for reason or logic in faith.

A very arrogant ... and untrue statement.
People of Faith are found at the top of every profession ... and whether somebody believes that God exists ... or not ... doesn't have any effect on their rationality.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... are you saying that rational people in Ireland are less than 1% of the population ... given that people self-declaring themselves as 'Atheist' on the 2011 Census represented 0.06% of the population?

The question on the census is about religion, not belief in god, so the vast majority of atheists ticked the 'No Religion' box.

Hmmm, I wonder has this been mentioned before?????

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

Whatever about atheists being rational, religious people cannot by definition be rational

that's a very broad sweeping statement, as you've not qualified it. do you mean religious people cannot make rational decisions about which mortgage to opt for, for example?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

The question on the census is about religion, not belief in god, so the vast majority of atheists ticked the 'No Religion' box.

Hmmm, I wonder has this been mentioned before?????

... presumably many Agnostics also ticked the 'No Religion' box as well as some Christians who are non-conformists and therefore reject religious dogma and rubrics.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... presumably many Agnostics also ticked the 'No Religion' box as well as some Christians who are non-conformists and therefore reject religious dogma and rubrics.

That is true. But your point?

Cianmcliam

looksee wrote: »

Whatever about atheists being rational, religious people cannot by definition be rational - which means based on reason or logic - as religion is all about faith and there is no requirement for reason or logic in faith.

If you live in a dogmatic religious society where atheism is a taboo and apostasy is severely punished, then it is rational to 'be' religious.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

That is true. But your point?

If we include the 'Atheist' proportion of 'non-religious' box tickers this might bump up total Atheists to 2-3% ... and the remaining 97% are not rational ... according to Azure_sky

Originally Posted by Azure_sky
What do you lot think of this? I tend to agree with the causes "Atheism plus" endorses. I just don't like the methods they've espoused thus far. Most rationale people, who almost invariably tend to be atheist, will endorse these values anyway.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

If we include the 'Atheist' proportion of 'non-religious' box tickers this might bump up total Atheists to 2-3% ... and the remaining 97% are not rational ... according to Azure_sky

Again, you have miscounted, due to your continuing misunderstanding of the religious question on the census. The question is about religion, not belief in god. Many people who follow a religion do not believe in a god.

For instance, according to a survey published on catholicbishops.ie, a whopping 90% of catholics believe in God. Not 100% though. This implies that 10% of the 84% of the 'self-declared' catholics are actually atheist.

Another survey stated "70% of Irish citizens answered that "they believe there is a God"

It would seem there are many more atheist Irish than the handful that post on this forum.

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a very broad sweeping statement, as you've not qualified it. do you mean religious people cannot make rational decisions about which mortgage to opt for, for example?

You are right. I'm not sure what I meant there, tbh. I probably did know at the time.

Hotblack Desiato

another thread polluted with J C guff, who is actually banned remember

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

another thread polluted with J C guff, who is actually banned remember

I'm not actually banned ... and there is no reason to ban me, simply because you disagree with what I say ... and the A & A supports this liberal principle of respect for diversity of opinion.

Arcade_Tryer

looksee wrote: »

Whatever about atheists being rational, religious people cannot by definition be rational - which means based on reason or logic - as religion is all about faith and there is no requirement for reason or logic in faith.

They cannot be rational regarding religion. Religious people can be perfectly rational in other aspects of life, and far more adept at critical thinking than atheists.

J C

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

They cannot be rational regarding religion. Religious people can be perfectly rational in other aspects of life, and far more adept at critical thinking than atheists.

They can be just as rational about Faith issues as Atheists can.

Each person comes with emotional baggage and bias on the existence of God, for example ... one person with a negative bias and the other with a positive bias. However, each person can overcome their bias when they logically examine whatever is under discussion thereby behaving rationally.

They can equally become highly emotional and defensive of their position ... and when they do so, they start behaving irrationally.

me_right_one

Pherekydes wrote: »

Again, you have miscounted, due to your continuing misunderstanding of the religious question on the census. The question is about religion, not belief in god. Many people who follow a religion do not believe in a god.

Thats some, eh, rationale there Ted:rolleyes:

Pherekydes wrote: »

For instance, according to a survey published on catholicbishops.ie, a whopping 90% of catholics believe in God. Not 100% though. This implies that 10% of the 84% of the 'self-declared' catholics are actually atheist.

Or, going by normal distribution, 10% didnt understand the question or otherwise messed it up. Doesnt automatically mean they're atheist. Are we to assume that 10% of those who ticked "atheist" are actually self-flegellating protestants who mortify themselves even further by denying their true faith on the census form?

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

I'm not actually banned ... and there is no reason to ban me, simply because you disagree with what I say ... and the A & A supports this liberal principle of respect for diversity of opinion.

You are banned from every thread on this forum except one, and it's not this one...

You are not banned for your opinions, but your soapboxing, repetition and trolling.

Arcade_Tryer

J C wrote: »

They can be just as rational about Faith issues as Atheists can.

Each person comes with emotional baggage and bias on the existence of God, for example ... one person with a negative bias and the other with a positive bias. However, each person can overcome their bias when they logically examine whatever is under discussion thereby behaving rationally.

They can equally become highly emotional and defensive of their position ... and when they do so, they start behaving irrationally.

The whole premise of your argument is a straw man, as in, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

A rational, scientific approach to the existence of God results in a failure to believe it exists.

You may want to look up compartmentalization.

robindch

Mod:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

another thread polluted with J C guff, who is actually banned remember

J C wrote: »

I'm not actually banned ...

Just to set the record straight - in previous years, you have been restricted to the creationism thread because of the low quality of your posts which can be interpreted as soapboxing which is against the forum charter. Since you've only recently returned to the forum again after a long gap, that restriction has been relaxed, but only so long as you generally post in a style conducive to discussion - which is to say, interesting or entertaining posts which move the discussion forward. Absolam is operating with the same restriction, for similar reasons.

If, at any time, the moderator team feels that, on balance, the volume of poor post you generate outweighs the good, then the restriction will be reinstated.

Thanking youze.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Just to set the record straight - in previous years, you have been restricted to the creationism thread because of the low quality of your posts which can be interpreted as soapboxing which is against the forum charter. Since you've only recently returned to the forum again after a long gap, that restriction has been relaxed, but only so long as you generally post in a style conducive to discussion - which is to say, interesting or entertaining posts which move the discussion forward. Absolam is operating with the same restriction, for similar reasons.

If, at any time, the moderator team feels that, on balance, the volume of poor post you generate outweighs the good, then the restriction will be reinstated.

Thanking youze.

I am conscious that I am a guest on your forum ... and therefore subject to the rules that apply to all posters on your forum.

J C

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A rational, scientific approach to the existence of God results in a failure to believe it exists.

Why do you believe this to be true?

I have a rational, scientific approach to the existence of God and I have come to the conclusion that He exists.

Different strokes ...

riffmongous

Funny how it just faded away, I've been trying to steer clear of any of that stuff the last years, but do people still care about those bloggers and the 'internet community'? What ever about to that Thunderfoot guy, or the whole Elevatorgate thing?

Hotblack Desiato

I'm still waiting for whichever member of this forum it was to admit to being elevator guy :pac:

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

Funny how it just faded away, I've been trying to steer clear of any of that stuff the last years, but do people still care about those bloggers and the 'internet community'? What ever about to that Thunderfoot guy, or the whole Elevatorgate thing?

Thunderfoot went full MRA but I gave up on his videos long before he went off the deep end.

orubiru

King Mob wrote: »

Thunderfoot went full MRA but I gave up on his videos long before he went off the deep end.

Wait, Thunderfoot is a Men's Rights Activist?

Are you sure about that?

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Wait, Thunderfoot is a Men's Rights Activist?

Are you sure about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c
Near enough to it anyway.

RichieO

It depends on the premise that you start from; if you split the question into two, do you believe in a god and do you follow organized religion, then look at scientific and philosophic professions, it would appear there are few, if any, followers of religion…
Many will say something to the effect of: “There is a force at work in the universe but I don’t understand it.”, that would be my idea of rational thinking.

J C

RichieO wrote: »

It depends on the premise that you start from; if you split the question into two, do you believe in a god and do you follow organized religion, then look at scientific and philosophic professions, it would appear there are few, if any, followers of religion…
Many will say something to the effect of: “There is a force at work in the universe but I don’t understand it.”, that would be my idea of rational thinking.

It would indeed be an example of rational thinking, based on the physical evidence for this force.
... but we need not stop there ... it is possible to characterise this force by philosophically examining its characteristics ... and by scientifically examining the results of its activities.

Anyway, what does the plus stand for in Atheism plus?

Arcade_Tryer

J C wrote: »

Why do you believe this to be true?

I have a rational, scientific approach to the existence of God and I have come to the conclusion that He exists.

Different strokes ...

You have absolutely no evidence for the existence of God except faith. Which is fine of course. But your belief is not based on a rational scientific approach. Intellectual dishonesty is very ugly.

J C

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

You have absolutely no evidence for the existence of God except faith. Which is fine of course. But your belief is not based on a rational scientific approach. Intellectual dishonesty is very ugly.

This isn't the thread to discuss this.

What does the plus stand for in Atheism Plus?

Wicki says the following:-

"Atheism Plus (also rendered Atheism+) was a movement proposed in 2012 by blogger Jen McCreight. Its original definition was rather nebulous, but in general, it encouraged progressive atheists to move beyond the question of (non-)belief and to address additional issues, including critical thinking, skepticism, social justice, feminism, anti-racism, and combating homophobia and transphobia.
The idea originated as a reaction to the nastiness flung about during a controversy over (sexual) harassment policies at atheist/skeptical conferences, which in turn was a re-ignition of the controversy over sexism in those two movements that had been smoldering since Elevatorgate.
The initiative largely went nowhere, and even proponents don't really use the term anymore. The phrase remains current, deployed as a snarl word by Reddit anti-feminists, Gamergate, the Slymepit, fans of Thunderf00t and other assholes who are active in atheist circles."

Veery ... ineereestiing !!!:)

orubiru

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c
Near enough to it anyway.

12 minute video. Not a single mention of men's rights.

Never mentioning men's rights is definitely what I'd expect from a Men's Rights Activist.

"Near enough to it anyway"

Brilliant.

In response to J C, the "Plus" part of Atheism Plus could be seen as a banner under which Atheists can act like religious people, creationists, flat earthers. You know the stuff. Making claims without evidence, committing logical fallacies etc.

As with many Theist vs Atheist arguments the people making the argument will try to create a sense that it's us, the true and righteous believers versus the false and morally bankrupt unbelievers.

This is demonstrated by the above. Claims are made without evidence and without a shred of rational thought.

Claim: Thunderf00t is a Men's Rights Activist

Evidence: 12 minute video where Thunderf00t does not talk about Men's Rights AT ALL.

As TF says himself in the video "the accusation IS the evidence".

nozzferrahhtoo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm still waiting for whichever member of this forum it was to admit to being elevator guy :pac:

Always wondered that one myself having spent a lot of time with her that day. Including having personally met and collected her from the airport and driven her to and from the conference.

Not to say I was around her the ENTIRE time but I do not recall anyone acting untoward around her. Towards the end of the night I was somewhat well oiled myself and even passingly wondered whether "elevator guy" had been ME. But I do not recall having used any elevators at any time during the conference, let alone specifically alone with her.

I do have a comical image in my mind of meeting her again sometime and her just going "YOU!!!!" and all hell breaking lose. To my knowledge though the only thing that upset anyone from me that day, and was mentioned in a few podcasts by people like Aron Ra DRP Jones and PZ Myers, was the quality of my driving

Whatever happened to DPR Jones? He seemed to disappear into obscurity after that conference.

orubiru

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always wondered that one myself having spent a lot of time with her that day. Including having personally met and collected her from the airport and driven her to and from the conference.

Not to say I was around her the ENTIRE time but I do not recall anyone acting untoward around her. Towards the end of the night I was somewhat well oiled myself and even passingly wondered whether "elevator guy" had been ME. But I do not recall having used any elevators at any time during the conference, let alone specifically alone with her.

I do have a comical image in my mind of meeting her again sometime and her just going "YOU!!!!" and all hell breaking lose. To my knowledge though the only thing that upset anyone from me that day, and was mentioned in a few podcasts by people like Aron Ra DRP Jones and PZ Myers, was the quality of my driving

Whatever happened to DPR Jones? He seemed to disappear into obscurity after that conference.

The thing about all that was that her comment was basically nothing. An innocuous throw-away line that people pounced on and ran into the ground.

Kinda feels like the entire community was primed to blow up and create these divisions. It's amazing how many Internet Atheists (particularly Youtube) were able to use this to push their "careers" and make a load of cash from this.

If I said something like "I hate when I am trying to just watch the football in the pub and some random woman tries to talk to me. Ladies, don't do that!". I would absolutely not expect the entire weight of the internet to come down on me!

Who even cares. She was going to her room and some guy was annoying her. No big deal. How dare you rebuff an approach from what sounds like a master PUA in the making! How very dare you!

I guess that people already didn't like her and were looking for an excuse to blow up? So weird.

The PZ Myers got sucked into it and basically became a laughing stock over the years as a result.

Didn't Matt Dillahunty even find himself in fights over Atheism Plus?

It is kinda funny that some people thought a community that spends most of it's time dismantling and outright mocking Creationist Theory was going to be totally open to accepting Feminist Theory. Obviously there would be backlash. Inviting Thunderfoot on board, then trying to go after him when he predictably rejects the "SJW" aspects. What where they thinking?

Now you've got the likes of Steve Shives and The Amazing Atheist and Atheism is Unstoppable... could you imagine those 3 and their various friends and enemies at a conference together? It's like the Atheist community looked at religion and thought it would be great if we could also have warring factions. Yeah, we can all agree that there's no God but is there anything we can fight to the death over?

It's crazy when you think about it. You would think the Atheist community would be so welcoming and accepting but so many were willing to go to "war" with each other. Makes you wonder how long people were harboring grudges before it all blew up.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea, the Richard Carrier court case is not going to help much either I warrant.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

12 minute video. Not a single mention of men's rights.

Never mentioning men's rights is definitely what I'd expect from a Men's Rights Activist.

"Near enough to it anyway"

Brilliant.

By MRA I mean the type who'd make a video about how feminists are shrill and poison everything.

It's videos like these that put me right off watching him.

Qs

MRA could just sum up his channel, Misogyny, Racism, Atheism.

orubiru

King Mob wrote: »

By MRA I mean the type who'd make a video about how feminists are shrill and poison everything.

It's videos like these that put me right off watching him.

What are you on about? MRA is Men's Rights Activist (or Advocate?).

So if he isn't talking about Men's Rights then how the hell is he an MRA?

I get that he is criticizing Feminism. That does not make him an Men's Rights Activist.

Even if he is just saying "feminism is poison and they are shrill". Show me the activism/advocating for men's rights in that statement.

MRA = Men's Rights Activist. That makes sense. It's a description.

MRA = "the type who'd make a video about how feminists are shrill and poison everything". What the hell are you on about?

Yes, it is also my opinion that Thunderfoots videos are not great and I think he comes across as a bit of an asshole.

How this looks to me is that you understand that "MRA" is an undesirable label in the current climate so it's easier to simply label someone an MRA than to address their points.

If you can show me how Thunderfoot is engaging in activism for men's rights then I will take it back and admit that he is an MRA.

However, would this really show that anyone who criticizes Feminism is automatically an activist/advocate for men's rights?

Quick question, if a woman thinks feminism is poison and also thinks that men already have all the rights is she an MRA?

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

MRA could just sum up his channel, Misogyny, Racism, Atheism.

You forgot to mention Nazi and Alt-Right.

(Thunderfoot was against Bexit and against Trump as far as I know)

This is why Atheism Plus was a total failure.

The Atheist community could have easily focused on charity fundraisers, good PR and maybe a bit of playful mockery of religion.

Nah, let's call people things they are not because the Skeptic community definitely won't question it, right?

robindch

orubiru wrote: »

The Atheist community could have easily focused on charity fundraisers, good PR and maybe a bit of playful mockery of religion. Nah, let's call people things they are not because the Skeptic community definitely won't question it, right?

There isn't really any such thing as the "atheist community" - nor is there a "skeptic community". Just people who hold atheist or skeptics beliefs, and who hold lots of other beliefs too.