Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jt512 said:
The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay
Click to expand...

That might be what they are saying some of the time. At other times, they are claiming that their precise approach is the only way to address issues of misogyny. They appear to deny that it's possible to oppose misogyny, and yet to want to take a different approach.

I'm not going by theory here- I'm looking at the response to people who express any form of doubt about Atheism+. They are immediately characterised as opposing its aims, and hence supporting racism and misogyny.
 
squealpiggy said:
If the "almost universal" impression of Atheism+ is that it defines misogynists, racists, homophobes etc as "anyone not in the group" then perhaps those involved need to look at the message instead of blaming the recipient for not understanding.
Click to expand...

Every response I've seen to anyone saying that they don't wish to be part of Atheism+ is to characterise that person as siding with bigotry. I don't claim that I've seen every such response, but that applies to all the ones I have seen.
 
Something I didn't mention because I only found it now, is that he's changed the idea of kicking people out for logical fallacies. I guess he got rid of that after making his poisoning the well more blatant.
 
Wildy said:
Something I didn't mention because I only found it now, is that he's changed the idea of kicking people out for logical fallacies. I guess he got rid of that after making his poisoning the well more blatant.
Click to expand...

I was going to ask you for a link to the change, Wildy, and then found that you had considerately posted the changed text in your excellent blog. Hope you don't mind if I copy it here for the convenience of others:

Original:
Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

It now reads (as of 30/8/12):
This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it (when given the chance), is probably not one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

Whew. What a sentence. And what a bunch of weaselly piffle.
 
RebeccaBradley said:
I was going to ask you for a link to the change, Wildy, and then found that you had considerately posted the changed text in your excellent blog. Hope you don't mind if I copy it here for the convenience of others:

Original:
Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

It now reads (as of 30/8/12):
This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it (when given the chance), is probably not one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

Whew. What a sentence. And what a bunch of weaselly piffle.
Click to expand...

The thing is - you know, well in advance, how that's going to work out in practice. Does it mean that trained logicians will independently analyze statements to see if they are sound? Or does it mean that whatever the A+ consensus might be is deemed to have been proven?

I was just reading a quite reasonable statement from one of the A+ founders which seemed largely to focus on atheist organisations ensuring that they were being inclusive, and if necessary reviewing their procedures. That's the kind of face that they like to present, but the above contradicts it.
 
Wildy said:
Something I didn't mention because I only found it now, is that he's changed the idea of kicking people out for logical fallacies. I guess he got rid of that after making his poisoning the well more blatant.
Click to expand...

From your quote of their nonsense:

To start us off, here are some issues I envision A+ addressing from a secular, skeptical perspective:

Racism
Sexism
Homophobia
Transphobia
Ableism
Classism
Ageism
Neurotypicalism
Animal welfare
Environmental issues
Political issues (Health care, crime, drug laws)
Click to expand...

In order:

Classism? WTF does that even mean? Let me guess - "Ugh, rich people bad, me good. Give me money."

Neurotypicalism? Double WTF? Seriously?

Animal welfare. Again, let me guess - "Ugh, eating meat bad. Vegans good."

Environmental issues. That's pretty broad, but I'll assume it means "Ugh, giant corporations bad."

Political issues (Health care, crime, drug laws): Anyone want to guess where this one is going? "Ugh, conservatives bad. Liberals good. Give us money."

This things gets dumber by the day.
 
I have a person in a facebook group that I'm a member of that supports atheism because it makes her feel safe. This concerns me.
 
westprog said:
The thing is - you know, well in advance, how that's going to work out in practice. Does it mean that trained logicians will independently analyze statements to see if they are sound? Or does it mean that whatever the A+ consensus might be is deemed to have been proven?

I was just reading a quite reasonable statement from one of the A+ founders which seemed largely to focus on atheist organisations ensuring that they were being inclusive, and if necessary reviewing their procedures. That's the kind of face that they like to present, but the above contradicts it.
Click to expand...

They seem to be less likeable as days go on.

The phrase 'not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.' seems particularly counter productive if they wish to persuade anyone else of their worth.

From the coments here.
Is everyone bored silly yet with all the stupid claims, misperceptions, and questions about atheism plus yet? By next week, I will have to consider anyone still going on about it intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

So now it is intellectually dishonest to ask questions.

Its getting harder to understand what they hope to achieve, but easier to accept it isn't any club I want to be part of.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
So what's the over/under on A+?

I say dead by Xmas, if not sooner.
Click to expand...

I think it will run and run. Some people want a group where they can discuss things with people who share a common interest. Some people want secret handshakes and to know that there are other people not allowed in. There will probably be tears before bedtime, and one or two of the currently prominent supporters will end up leaving in a huff, but I'd see it prospering - not in the sense of changing society, but in the sense of making the members feel better. Everyone wants to be in the no-Homers - even Homer. And when you're pushing openness and exclusivity, that's a great combination.
 
Acleron said:
Longer than that, there are too many who feel they are superior to the rest of us lesser atheists.
Click to expand...

Even better - they feel superior because the other atheists look down on women and minorities and they don't. They're an anti-elitist elite. What could be better?
 
Greater As have little As upon their back to bite'em
And little As have lesser As and so ad infinitum

Sorry, couldn't resist it, promise not to do it again. :boxedin:
 
westprog said:
I think it will run and run. Some people want a group where they can discuss things with people who share a common interest. Some people want secret handshakes and to know that there are other people not allowed in. There will probably be tears before bedtime, and one or two of the currently prominent supporters will end up leaving in a huff, but I'd see it prospering - not in the sense of changing society, but in the sense of making the members feel better. Everyone wants to be in the no-Homers - even Homer. And when you're pushing openness and exclusivity, that's a great combination.
Click to expand...

I would give it a year. They will carry on for a while until one of them disagrees with the others. That one will get abused and mistreated. They will survive it the first time but start to fade. If it happens a second time they will blow up.
 
I have been trying to follow this train wreck but I still can't answer these questions:

1. What does A+ wants to positively achieve? When I look at JREF, I see a lot of good stuff that make society better and hold accountable some of the less savory characters, but I don't see any benefit of this group of people (A+).

2. Is it not much more than an academic experiment by PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson as puppet masters to see how the rest of the Atheist community will react?

3. By questioning them now, am I becoming a douche-bag?

4. Is this a very good example of an echo chamber? Do they actually believe what they are writing?

5. What about all these conspiracy theories? One blogger mentioned that A+ wants or has created a list of unwelcome speakers (by their criteria) to force conference organizers to not invite them to speak. McCartyism anyone?
 
WillyWonka said:
I have been trying to follow this train wreck but I still can't answer these questions:

1. What does A+ wants to positively achieve? When I look at JREF, I see a lot of good stuff that make society better and hold accountable some of the less savory characters, but I don't see any benefit of this group of people (A+).

2. Is it not much more than an academic experiment by PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson as puppet masters to see how the rest of the Atheist community will react?

3. By questioning them now, am I becoming a douche-bag?

4. Is this a very good example of an echo chamber? Do they actually believe what they are writing?

5. What about all these conspiracy theories? One blogger mentioned that A+ wants or has created a list of unwelcome speakers (by their criteria) to force conference organizers to not invite them to speak. McCartyism anyone?
Click to expand...

1: I have no idea

2: I'm not sure Rebecca is all that involved. I don't really read Skepchick much anymore since it has veered so much away from skepticism and into feminism, but I get the sense that this isn't her thing.

3: Yes. By default.

4: Yes and yes. Which is why it is ultimately doomed to fail.

5: I know nothing about this. I doubt they have the power.

ETA: 5A: In fact, I know they don't. Invertebrates like JT might cave and have a meaningless (and largely unenforceable) "harassment policy" at Skepticon, but unless and until TAM does, they are impotent.
 
Last edited:
WillyWonka said:
1. What does A+ wants to positively achieve?
Click to expand...

World domination.

2. Is it not much more than an academic experiment by PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson as puppet masters to see how the rest of the Atheist community will react?
Click to expand...

No, they really believe this crap.

3. By questioning them now, am I becoming a douche-bag?
Click to expand...

Yes.

4. Is this a very good example of an echo chamber? Do they actually believe what they are writing?
Click to expand...

See answer to question 2.

5. What about all these conspiracy theories? One blogger mentioned that A+ wants or has created a list of unwelcome speakers (by their criteria) to force conference organizers to not invite them to speak. McCartyism anyone?
Click to expand...

Officially denied by PZ Myers in a post entitled There Is No Blacklist where he ironically announces, "I will not participate in any conference in which Abbie Smith is a speaker."
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
ETA: 5A: In fact, I know they don't. Invertebrates like JT might cave and have a meaningless (and largely unenforceable) "harassment policy" at Skepticon, but unless and until TAM does, they are impotent.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you opposed to skeptical conferences having sexual harassment policies?

Jay
 
jt512 said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you opposed to skeptical conferences having sexual harassment policies?

Jay
Click to expand...

I never really understood the controversy over sexual harassment policies. They are kinda part of any gathering of more then 1 gender nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom