Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 136 of 526 (671666)
08-28-2012 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
08-28-2012 10:58 PM


Re: Atheism+
..., but you can't organize a bunch of people who don't necessarily have any beliefs in common.
Yes, exactly right.
I keep seeing atheist meetings being pushed on some of the blogs. And I can't imagine why I would ever want to attend one. I suppose there is slightly more content to a skeptics meeting, though I can't imagine why I would want to attend one of those either.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 08-28-2012 10:58 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 137 of 526 (671679)
08-29-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
08-28-2012 10:58 PM


Re: Atheism+
As for the atheist+ "movement", it may as well open up to theists who share the same politics.
Which is what they should do if they ever hope to be anything other than another irrelevant fringe group.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 08-28-2012 10:58 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 138 of 526 (671712)
08-29-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
08-28-2012 10:58 PM


Re: Atheism+
These people who seem to be trying to get together some kind of organized atheism are just learning what I could have told them at the start. You can have skeptics organizations, and humanist organisations, and religious organizations, and all kinds of organizations based around peoples beliefs, but you can't organize a bunch of people who don't necessarily have any beliefs in common.
You didn't need to teach them this - it's written in what is as close to the 'New Atheist' manifesto as one can propose, The God Delusion, 2006 (from the preface):
quote:
Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to 'come out,' thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.
I think that critical mass is still building, but now that the atheist movement is large, it also has acquired a certain level of diversity of opinion. If it keeps growing, it will become almost entirely without direction. I was thinking the end game was to merge with Humanism, and maybe Atheism+ is an intermediary stepping stone in that direction.
As for the atheist+ "movement", it may as well open up to theists who share the same politics.
I'm pretty sure the humanists and secularists have that particular niche more or less covered. Atheism+ is a label chosen to retain the atheistic element of the movement in the identifying label. To continue the movement to de-stigmatize the position while also identifying some positive beliefs.
It probably won't catch on everywhere. It's main purpose seems to be about retaining the 'confrontation' of calling oneself an atheist, but carrying an additional identifier as to the kind of atheist one is...this tactic is best in environments where there are quite a lot of atheists, but there is still stigma surrounding calling oneself an atheist. Such as America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 08-28-2012 10:58 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 08-30-2012 1:42 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 139 of 526 (671798)
08-30-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Modulous
08-29-2012 5:38 PM


Re: Atheism+
Modulous writes:
You didn't need to teach them this - it's written in what is as close to the 'New Atheist' manifesto as one can propose, The God Delusion, 2006 (from the preface):...
Yeah, I remember that. Someone with a sense of humour gave me the book as a Christmas present a few years ago.
And you can't herd cats. The overwhelming majority of atheists will not be interested in joining organised groups. If we were the type of people who have an emotional need for a religion, we'd probably already be in one.
Maybe I should start a completely disorganised movement called IA. Irreligious Atheists. The only thing you have to do to join is fit the description. The rules are that you never go to IA meetings (easy to obey), never wear IA T-shirts, never attempt to contact and meet other IAs, and never attempt to herd cats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2012 5:38 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Omnivorous, posted 11-03-2012 9:32 AM bluegenes has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 140 of 526 (677938)
11-02-2012 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Modulous
08-28-2012 5:35 PM


Re: Atheism+
Interesting. I had no idea all this drama was unfolding in the atheist world.
From your description, I have no interest in aligning myself with the Atheist+ movement. Why? Because my atheism has absolutely nothing to do with feminism, racism, or homophobia. It's about knowing there is no supernatural. Period. I don't have to be a feminist, non-racist, homo-friendly, flaming liberal to be an atheist. They are completely separate, albeit compatible, systems of belief and/or knowledge. I'm an atheist regardless of what other beliefs I hold.
This movement reminds me of when someone told me I couldn't call myself a Democrat and work in the mining industry because a 'real' Democrat would never rape the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 5:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2012 2:14 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2012 12:59 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 526 (677940)
11-03-2012 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by roxrkool
11-02-2012 11:14 PM


Re: Atheism+
This movement reminds me of when someone told me I couldn't call myself a Democrat and work in the mining industry because a 'real' Democrat would never rape the planet.
Hmm ... do real Democrats use objects made out of metal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by roxrkool, posted 11-02-2012 11:14 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by roxrkool, posted 11-03-2012 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 142 of 526 (677952)
11-03-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
08-30-2012 1:42 PM


Re: Atheism+
bluegenes writes:
Maybe I should start a completely disorganised movement called IA. Irreligious Atheists. The only thing you have to do to join is fit the description. The rules are that you never go to IA meetings (easy to obey), never wear IA T-shirts, never attempt to contact and meet other IAs, and never attempt to herd cats.
Meeting-attending, T-shirt wearing, networking and cat-herding factions would arise to contest your hierarchical authority.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 08-30-2012 1:42 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 11-03-2012 5:10 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 143 of 526 (677968)
11-03-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
11-03-2012 2:14 AM


Re: Atheism+
Don't get me started...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2012 2:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 144 of 526 (677980)
11-03-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Omnivorous
11-03-2012 9:32 AM


Re: Atheism+
Omnivorous writes:
Meeting-attending, T-shirt wearing, networking and cat-herding factions would arise to contest your hierarchical authority.
Futile, as we have no network to infiltrate, and we're all anonymous. The movement's doing well, which is why you've never heard of it, apart from my indiscreet post above. It couldn't be better disorganized.
If anyone is interested in the subthread topic, I've just been looking at the Atheism+Forum. I read one thread which had about 12 participants and 100 posts. 3 of the 12 got banned for not towing the party line, which took much of the interest out of the discussion.
The forum rules are interesting. Learn how to recognise your Privileges, O White Man, and never, never, never call a female of our species a female (feminist, apparently, is fine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Omnivorous, posted 11-03-2012 9:32 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 11-03-2012 6:51 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 146 by roxrkool, posted 11-03-2012 11:20 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 145 of 526 (677988)
11-03-2012 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluegenes
11-03-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Atheism+
bluegenes writes:
I read one thread which had about 12 participants and 100 posts. 3 of the 12 got banned for not towing the party line, which took much of the interest out of the discussion.
Could you provide a link to that particular discussion? Thanks.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 11-03-2012 5:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by bluegenes, posted 11-04-2012 4:02 AM Panda has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 146 of 526 (678003)
11-03-2012 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluegenes
11-03-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Atheism+
I never knew calling a woman a "female" was an insult.
In fact, I'm feeling decidedly unworthy to call myself an Atheist, much less a female... er, I mean a chick, a damsel, a lass, a tootsie, (crap!) I mean a slutty, unmasculine feminist Atheist doxy, after reading the Announcements portion of the Information and Answers forum. Sheesh!
A comprehensive list of approved replacement words for the unfortunate "female" appears to be in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 11-03-2012 5:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by bluegenes, posted 11-04-2012 1:43 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 147 of 526 (678018)
11-04-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Panda
11-03-2012 6:51 PM


Re: Atheism+
Panda writes:
Could you provide a link to that particular discussion? Thanks.
Link to discussion on Rebecca Watson article.
It's actually very relevant to the history that triggered this little war.
They already have a banned list of 64 people from their first two months of operation. But to say fair, there's a reason for this. Their enemies are turning up and many are being deliberately provocative (one of the bannings on the thread I read was for posting a tasteless sexist "joke" about violence to women, for example - although prior to that, the poster had been reasonable, and had received repeated warnings which did fit my "not towing the party line" description), so a siege mentality has developed. Unfortunately, that could lead to stifling any more reasonable criticism.
All in all, a lot of the behaviour on both sides doesn't look good for "organized atheism" and the type of atheists who get involved in it.
None of which has much to do with the overwhelming majority of the world's atheists, nor will it affect the inevitable growth of atheism, which is a phenomenon beyond our control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 11-03-2012 6:51 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Panda, posted 11-04-2012 9:24 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 149 by roxrkool, posted 11-04-2012 12:59 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 148 of 526 (678024)
11-04-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by bluegenes
11-04-2012 4:02 AM


Re: Atheism+
That site doesn't seem to have (or allow) any discussion.
It reminds me of EvolutionFairytale.com a bit.
That is fine - if they want a place to hang out with like-minded people - why should I care.
But it is dull to read.
I, personally, like to have my beliefs questioned - else how would I know if they are correct?
e.g. PRATTs might be annoying to people on this board, but I have actually learnt a lot from their rebuttals.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by bluegenes, posted 11-04-2012 4:02 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 149 of 526 (678036)
11-04-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by bluegenes
11-04-2012 4:02 AM


Re: Atheism+
You know, I read about this *elevatorgate* episode previously, just before I stopped reading Pharyngula, and I honestly didn't see the big deal at the time. I still don't. In fact, that might have been the last straw for me on Pharyngula, come to think of it.
Maybe I'm missing part of the story or something... Which is quite likely since I can hardly get through 5 posts on the subject before I feel mired in the dramatics and stop reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by bluegenes, posted 11-04-2012 4:02 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2012 4:36 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 11-04-2012 7:01 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 150 of 526 (678038)
11-04-2012 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by roxrkool
11-03-2012 11:20 PM


Re: Atheism+
roxrkool writes:
I never knew calling a woman a "female" was an insult.
In fact, I'm feeling decidedly unworthy to call myself an Atheist, much less a female... er, I mean a chick, a damsel, a lass, a tootsie, (crap!) I mean a slutty, unmasculine feminist Atheist doxy, after reading the Announcements portion of the Information and Answers forum. Sheesh!
I've just checked that out. The glossary is fascinating. Sheesh indeed!
From Atheism+ Glossary. First item (there are lots!).
quote:
-isms - refers to many, often all systemic and institutionalized powers that enable the oppression of marginalized people. (racism, sexism, ableism, etc.) The purpose of these forums being the discussion of social justice issues within the context of atheism, we use the social justice definitions of words like "racism", "sexism", and other -isms. You may have seen the terms "Institutional Racism", Systemic Racism, Institutional/Systemic Sexism, etc. The short version is -isms = prejudice + power. In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms in regards to the axes of privilege that they fall low on, because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices. We make this distinction for the sake of clarity and so that otherwise productive discussions do not degenerate into quibbling over definitions. (The A+ Primer)
Plenty to debate on that one alone. Unfortunately, the glossary does not give us the "social justice definition" of "institutionalize".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by roxrkool, posted 11-03-2012 11:20 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024