Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Myriad]

Well, let's form a committee and explore the possibility of no-name atheists challenging these elite thinkers to a public debate?

You'd need a good topic though, one that will attract interest. "Do any gods exist?" would be a perfect choice.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Well, let's form a committee and explore the possibility of no-name atheists challenging these elite thinkers to a public debate?

They don't want to debate. That's the whole point of A+. They're trying to create a dissent-free zone.

 

[Antiquehunter]

They don't want to debate. That's the whole point of A+. They're trying to create a dissent-free zone.

If A+ers wanted to debate, they wouldn't censor & ban willy-nilly. It is quite bizarre.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I can think of at least two others, though they are easy to overlook.

I was going to say something nice about you and your mom being petite, wonderful, beautiful and charismatic so clearly his "overlook" pun while accurate didn't diminish your presence, but I instead will... yeah, I'll just go with that.

The really bizarre thing is that I've now been banned/blocked by two people I think are generally intelligent & interesting (if not behaving badly at the moment) - Richard Carrier & Melody Helmsley. For making the SLIGHTEST critique / pointed question about this whole '+' BS. How does blocking someone who is 95% on the same page help out a fledgling movement? And why the need for such vitriol?

The worst I've ever done at a TAM is compliment a woman on her shoes. As a gay man, I think that is within my rights.

Gee, and some people want to poo poo the group-think personality cult nature of this "movement".

 

[Dinwar]

I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo.

A stunning critique, as usual. No need to address the actual issues (including the flagrant "You're with us or you're the enemy" mentality, the demand that they're The One True Faith I'm sorry, Atheism, the ad-hoc nature of their requirements, their treatment of those who disagree....). We can simply tell our opponents why they think the way they do!

I just had a thought: maybe the Atheist+ people are sad because they don't own enough cats. I think we should all send them cats. I promise not to whine about them having cats. And if they don't accept the cats, they're A+Holes!

 

[The Man]

They don't want to debate. That's the whole point of A+. They're trying to create a dissent-free zone.

If A+ers wanted to debate, they wouldn't censor & ban willy-nilly. It is quite bizarre.

One of the other things that has perplexed me about their stated position, Axiom_Blade and Antiquehunter. My remark before about being “a douche bag even when agreeing“ was partially a joke and partially serious. I don’t and don’t have to always agree with even just myself and even when I do I still challenge and debate even just myself. I don’t know how anyone can consider themselves a critical thinker if they don‘t at least first and foremost think critically about their own positions. Now one’s position on say ‘1+1=2’ can be fairly secure but when it comes to social change, how to go about that and in particular involving peoples “happiness", things become very debatable indeed.

How do you enact sociological change without directly engaging, by participation, society at large?

Half a century ago when I was born and even while growing up racial discrimination and enforced segregation were the law of the land in many parts here in the US. That changed while I was growing up. Not because people willingly segregated themselves further to ‘safe zones’ but because they put themselves directly in harm’s way. Not just by deliberately exposing themselves to verbal abuse, threats of violence and incarceration but to actual violence perpetrated upon them without retribution.

A+ want a ‘safe zone’ to talk about stuff, fine be my guest, I’ve got no problem with that but portray it exactly for what it is just a safe place for like minded people to talk. Not a tool for social change, a new wave of atheism or something others must profess their support for under some threat of being besmirched. I’m not looking for a safe place to talk and I’m simply not a ‘joiner’. As Groucho Marx once said…

“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”.


The other part is I wonder just how far most of them are willing to take this ‘with us or with them mentality’? Will they put their money where their mouths are (well if they do they’ll have to wash it because those mouths are definitely in the gutter)? ‘You’re either with us or you at least tacitly support what we oppose’! Would they have to vet the plumber coming to fix the pipes to make sure they’re not a racist or work for a company owned by racists? Quit ones job since the company did not pledge support to A+ when demanded and must then be say sexist? Find another store that doesn’t employ or is perhaps not owned by anyone homophobic? Anything less would be supporting what they oppose even more than someone simply not joining them would and they therefore must ‘out’ themselves from the group. Reductio ad absurdu? Sure, but such a binary approach to complex issues is already reduced and relegated to such absurdity.

 

[westprog]

The other part is I wonder just how far most of them are willing to take this ‘with us or with them mentality’? Will they put their money where their mouths are (well if they do they’ll have to wash it because those mouths are definitely in the gutter)? ‘You’re either with us or you at least tacitly support what we oppose’!

The absurdity is that if they achieve membership in the thousands, that would be considered a massive success. The vast majority of mankind is unlikely to ever hear of them.

Meanwhile, as to the issue of online harassment - this.

Note that Mark Millar has not always been considered to be on the "right" side of issues such as representation at comics conferences, and has had some criticism for the portrayal of women in comics such as Kick-Ass. Nevertheless, he's on the side of the good guys here. Lessons for all.

Note also Paul Cornell's campaign to get equal representation for women on panels. Done without insulting or attacking or splitting anyone.

Heaven knows the comics world is just as liable to splits and feuds as any other, and has been in the past, but there are examples of how to do things right and how to do them wrong on all sides.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The absurdity is that if they achieve membership in the thousands, that would be considered a massive success. The vast majority of mankind is unlikely to ever hear of them.

The issue, I think, isn't how big their membership is, but how influential they are. If they can convince powerful and influential people to take them seriously, then they can have some effect.

This is why it's good that people are openly criticizing them right now. If everyone was afraid to say anything negative about them, because they would be "outed" as "politically incorrect", or "misogynist", or whatever, that would be bad. If we openly mock and criticize them, just like we do any other religion, that will help to show that not everyone supports them. In fact, as of right now, it seems like their support is very small. (Note that I'm not condoning stupid attacks, like a lot of the juvenile insults I've seen online. Keep it mature, errybody.)

A+ does creep me out, however, for the simple reason that I'm creeped out any time irrational, dogmatic people get organized.

 

[Irony]

A stunning critique, as usual. No need to address the actual issues (including the flagrant "You're with us or you're the enemy" mentality, the demand that they're The One True Faith I'm sorry, Atheism, the ad-hoc nature of their requirements, their treatment of those who disagree....). We can simply tell our opponents why they think the way they do!

I just had a thought: maybe the Atheist+ people are sad because they don't own enough cats. I think we should all send them cats. I promise not to whine about them having cats. And if they don't accept the cats, they're A+Holes!

Or maybe that was a joke, a joke which you just repeated.

I have no interest in this A+ movement, it smells like Ayn Rand 2.0, but I can't help but notice that most of the criticism seems to be nothing more than rants about how horrible those people at FTBlogs are which mostly center around wild imaginings of their evil intentions, which smells to me like feuding between two rival cults.

 

[squealpiggy]

PZ has made yet another post about this topic. He was a speaker at a conference in Denver it seems and the people who attended his talk seemed very positive about the whole thing.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/03/im-back/

See, weird…from all the pushback we see on the web, you’d think there’d be more objections.

You see, unlike Thunderf00t PZ never engages in sampling bias!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm seeing Deep Rifts here.

(wrings hands, runs around with hair on fire)


Here's a suggestion for all those who find certain sites on the internet unsettling:

Don't go there.

Not unsettling at all. I go purely for the entertainment value! Although, I have to admit it's starting to bore me.

 

[Acleron]

Or maybe that was a joke, a joke which you just repeated.

I have no interest in this A+ movement, it smells like Ayn Rand 2.0, but I can't help but notice that most of the criticism seems to be nothing more than rants about how horrible those people at FTBlogs are which mostly center around wild imaginings of their evil intentions, which smells to me like feuding between two rival cults.

The criticism is about the divisive nature of this group, the labelling, as alluded to by Dinwar, of anybody who doesn't support them as A+++holes and the active demonisations of anybody who criticises them. The problems for the rest of us will be in any debate with theists. In addition to the usual evasions we normally experience when pinning them to any point, they can create multiple strawmen from making atheism equal to atheism+.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No they're not. The vast majority of people, even atheists, have no idea who the hell they are and, of those that do, many don't care. There's a podcast/blog/YouTube circle jerk that is rather small, insular and insignificant.

And yes, they do get invited to speak at conferences - attended by less people in a year than pack a single mega-church on any given week.

There aren't enough underlines in the world to over-emphasize this.

 

[Irony]

The criticism is about the divisive nature of this group, the labelling, as alluded to by Dinwar, of anybody who doesn't support them as A+++holes and the active demonisations of anybody who criticises them. The problems for the rest of us will be in any debate with theists. In addition to the usual evasions we normally experience when pinning them to any point, they can create multiple strawmen from making atheism equal to atheism+.

This justifies you doing the same?

By all means, criticize their tactics, criticize what they say, but I see an awful lot of imagining what they must have meant. "We intend this group to be a sub-set of atheists" becomes "anyone not in this subset is not a real atheist".

These tactics don't help your case. Just as how when I hear about how Obama has a secret plan to impoverish America I tune out the speaker, so too do I tune out the posters here who cite relatively innocuous statements by members this...whatever it is and strait up make up horrible things that they must have really meant by it.

You criticize them for calling non-members names, and yet I've seen the word FTBullies thrown around here quite a lot. Pot. Kettle. etc.

 

[Acleron]

This justifies you doing the same?

By all means, criticize their tactics, criticize what they say, but I see an awful lot of imagining what they must have meant. "We intend this group to be a sub-set of atheists" becomes "anyone not in this subset is not a real atheist".

These tactics don't help your case. Just as how when I hear about how Obama has a secret plan to impoverish America I tune out the speaker, so too do I tune out the posters here who cite relatively innocuous statements by members this...whatever it is and strait up make up horrible things that they must have really meant by it.

You criticize them for calling non-members names, and yet I've seen the word FTBullies thrown around here quite a lot. Pot. Kettle. etc.

Yes, your last point is well made.

 

[squealpiggy]

This justifies you doing the same?

By all means, criticize their tactics, criticize what they say, but I see an awful lot of imagining what they must have meant. "We intend this group to be a sub-set of atheists" becomes "anyone not in this subset is not a real atheist".

Except that the argument is "anyone not in this subset is an *******, a mean spirited scumbag who should be made a pariah and drummed out of the movement for supporting rape and hating gays".

That is literally the argument made by Richard Carrier and echoed by PZ Myers.

 

[Irony]

Except that the argument is "anyone not in this subset is an *******, a mean spirited scumbag who should be made a pariah and drummed out of the movement for supporting rape and hating gays".

That is literally the argument made by Richard Carrier and echoed by PZ Myers.

If that is "literally" their argument, then you can provide a source for when they've made it, correct?

If not then that's your interpretation of their argument.

From what I've seen they've been quick to use the misogyny card against some of their opponents, pointing that out is fair criticism. I've also seen quotes from their leaders suggesting that they take a "with us or against us" stance, that's more than fair to criticize. I have not seen one of their leaders actually state that every single non-member is "an *******, a mean spirited scumbag who should be made a pariah and drummed out of the movement for supporting rape and hating gays". If you have a source on this I would love to see it. I mean that genuinely.

 

[Moss]

I think the major problem is that apparently neither side is able to bridge the gap that currently seems to be widening daily. I'm not sure if either side still has that as a goal. If not that would be sad. (Yes, I've seen both Antiquehunter's and Wolfman's efforts, I'm not saying you aren't trying. I think that is/was very laudable.)

There seem to be some very vocal people on either side that eager to mark the other side as somehow not truly skeptical. That may well be true, but I don't think that labeling alone solves anything. Nor do I think will "they'll just go away after a while" is going to work in any way.

I also don't quite understand what I perceive as a certain furor towards them. Or not in its entirety to be precise.
I can understand that kochanski for example is vexed because you have the feeling that they pretended to speak in the name of all women in the skeptical/atheist movement. I can understand that, I'd feel similar I suppose.
A lot of the anger in their direction seems to stem from their mixing of demands for social justice and their rather outspoken brand of feminism with skepticism. I've read comments that ranged from "No true feminism" to "no true skepticism because feminism is woo". I think those comments are interesting but not necessarily limited to the A+ discussion. Especially as feminism in general has been a hot topic on this very board. It's hard for me at least to say whether that is the result of the specific behaviour of the people over at FtB or a general backlash against the skeptic/atheism/skepticism combo. It really part of this, part of that.

Then there are the comments of the "in it for pageviews/in it for money". How do those people that lob those comments about know that? It seems to me like that borders on the ad hominem. Just as you are sincere in your opinions you may as well extend the same benefit of doubt to the other side, even if you do not share their opinions. Because else we end up with black and white thinking and I can't really think of any time where that was beneficial.

And on a personal note: I rather enjoy Reasonable Doubt who also happen to be on FTB. Does that make me one of THEM?

 

[tsig]

Or maybe that was a joke, a joke which you just repeated.

I have no interest in this A+ movement, it smells like Ayn Rand 2.0, but I can't help but notice that most of the criticism seems to be nothing more than rants about how horrible those people at FTBlogs are which mostly center around wild imaginings of their evil intentions, which smells to me like feuding between two rival cults.

They could call the anti "A+" cult, "A-".

 

[Walter Ego]

A-Hole Athists Unite!

You criticize them for calling non-members names, and yet I've seen the word FTBullies thrown around here quite a lot. Pot. Kettle. etc.

False equivalence.

"Bullies" is merely descriptive and examples of this bullying have been posted on this thread and elsewhere on the internet. Correctly identifying this behavior is not name calling.

Calling anyone who even sightly disagrees with you douchebag, misogynist, rape apologist, a-hole atheist and some other choice epitaphs I can't use on a moderated forum is name calling.