Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
chillzero said:
I think that's a real shame. Claus can be very annoying when he refuses to back down on something he has gotten wrong, however, he asks good questions, and people tend ot get irritated when they don't have clear answers. I was prey to it myself when I first came here believing in woo.

I think the questions he was asking (that I read so far) were perfectly legitimate, and I like how they were worded. It's a disgrace to that website that instead of engaging in discussion about the answers they firstly kept telling him they had already been answered (they had not, because the 'answer' was "we don't know yet", or else person A contradicted person B) and have now cut him off. It's like Pilots for Truth or Loose Change forums all over again in that respect - not good company for a 'skeptics' site to be keeping.

If they are honest at all, they should collate his questions and discuss them among the central team that is driving this movement, and come up with some decent mission satements, policies and FAQs based on them.
Click to expand...

The essence of the posts was the heart of A+, and the problem that a lot of people have had with it - that there are two blocks of atheism, and one block is sending rape threats to the other block, en masse. The reactions of many of the people involved seem to be directly related to the attacks made on them for implicitly supporting certain attacks, or statements.

So while the post may have been phrased in a way calculated to annoy people, the substantive question is reasonable - can it be demonstrated that the people who are coming up with the extreme abuse are directly connected with the groups opposing A+.

Of course, the term "atheist" doesn't necessarily mean someone involved with atheism as a movement or group. Nor does such involvement necessarily imply the endorsement of other members of any given group. Nor, indeed, does a failure to condemn any given act imply endorsement of it.
 
storm crow said:
[delurk]

I've followed this debacle from the beginning, and I'm of the opinion that really no one on either side of the debate has covered themselves in glory. Still, it has been an amusing flame war though.

[/delurk]
Click to expand...

There was ample opportunity for various people holding various positions to take the moral high ground, but the opportunity was for the most part gleefully foregone.

I wonder if there might have been a slight issue with a group of people whose raison d'etre is rightness - absolutely certain rightness - being able to cope with disagreement.
 
westprog said:
There was ample opportunity for various people holding various positions to take the moral high ground, but the opportunity was for the most part gleefully foregone.

I wonder if there might have been a slight issue with a group of people whose raison d'etre is rightness - absolutely certain rightness - being able to cope with disagreement.
Click to expand...

I think there may be something to that. Also loyal followers on their blogs/Youtube channels egging on them may have also contributed.
 
westprog said:
There was ample opportunity for various people holding various positions to take the moral high ground, but the opportunity was for the most part gleefully foregone.

I wonder if there might have been a slight issue with a group of people whose raison d'etre is rightness - absolutely certain rightness - being able to cope with disagreement.
Click to expand...

I think a lot has to be said about the behaviour of the A+ leaders, PZ, Watson, Carrier, and McCreight, and the tone of the discussion they took. The "them vs us" ideology that they took let their supporters to follow this mob mentality.

It is interesting and refreshing that D.L. and the JREF group have stayed away from engaging on this issue, and thus keeping it civil, as this forum has shown.
 
storm crow said:
[delurk]

I've followed this debacle from the beginning, and I'm of the opinion that really no one on either side of the debate has covered themselves in glory. Still, it has been an amusing flame war though.

[/delurk]
Click to expand...

Delurk? You've been here for 6 days and made 3 posts. While not an outrageous number by any means, that certainly isn't lurking. Your post is more of a troll than a delurk.
 
storm crow said:
[delurk]

I've followed this debacle from the beginning, and I'm of the opinion that really no one on either side of the debate has covered themselves in glory. Still, it has been an amusing flame war though.

[/delurk]
Click to expand...

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.
 
A+ promoters seem to be guilty of a basic logical fallacy:

"You're either with us, or against usWP," is a false dilemmaWP (aka false dichotomy). It's function is to manipulate people.

...goes back at least to Jesus:

Jesus is reported to have said, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30), and also "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40).
Click to expand...
 
WillyWonka said:
I think a lot has to be said about the behaviour of the A+ leaders, PZ, Watson, Carrier, and McCreight, and the tone of the discussion they took. The "them vs us" ideology that they took let their supporters to follow this mob mentality.

It is interesting and refreshing that D.L. and the JREF group have stayed away from engaging on this issue, and thus keeping it civil, as this forum has shown.
Click to expand...

It's always tempting to "have a go back" but effectively that's what's been going on for years now. I'm not sure how virulent Watson and McCreight have been, but PZ and Carrier just went for it - doing nobody any good.
 
Moss said:

Someone garbled the escape sequence for the ampersand, try this.
Click to expand...

This and the banning of a person for what was (I thought) a very good post, asking very valid questions, in a very polite way, suggests an agenda to me.

An agenda that doesn't support skeptical or critical thinking. I won't bother looking any more.:covereyes
 
What the hell is up with all the made up words with this crowd? "ciswhatever", "trans*whatever", mansplaining, and now this new one:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=721
"The fact is religion has been used by the kyriarchy to supress those in a minority for generations."

Kyriarchy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

In an ironic twist, just last week a coworker of mine introduced me to a term being bandied about by Conservatives - Oikophobia. The original term refers to an aversion to household surroundings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia
But some Conservatives are using it to mean self-hating liberals who despise America and love Muslims or Mexicans or some such nonsense.
 
Im gonna start the Atheism++ movement. It's just atheism, but you must love bacon.

Im assuming Ill have 100% inclusion rate.

Or perhaps Atheism++ could be like Atheism, but with object orientation.

That joke is for IT people. Everyone else, move along.


ETA: Let me just say that Atheism+ is the most stupid idea Ive heard in a long, long time...... I think that the fact that PZ et al cant see it must be evidence for mass head trauma of some kind. Im just waiting for the "sooo....... it ended up being a really bad idea" thread.
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
Can I assume that JAQ stands for "Just Asking Questions", and is some clever little "witticism" (using the term very loosely) designed so the A+ guys can avoid answering questions while maintaining an air of superiority?

Theyre nothing if not predictable.
Click to expand...

If you'd have read A+/FtB/Skepchick bloggers blog "The JAQing off FAQ" you'd know that answer.
 
devnull said:
Can I assume that JAQ stands for "Just Asking Questions", and is some clever little "witticism" (using the term very loosely) designed so the A+ guys can avoid answering questions while maintaining an air of superiority?

Theyre nothing if not predictable.
Click to expand...

I think "JAQing off" was coined by our very own Marquis De Carabas to desc ribe a certain kind of Conspiracy Theorist who would open a thread attempting a clumsy form of Socratic dialogue:

"Why did it take so long to scramble jet fighters on 9/11?"
"How many high-rise buildings collapsed from fire before the twin towers?"
When you call them out on the assumptions hidden in there, the CTer will reply with "I'm not making any asumptions, I'm Just Asking Questions..."
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Poisonous Zealot Myers weighs in on those critical of A+
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/04/the-anti-atheist-boobs-on-twitter/
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, love it.

I think PZ really is keeping 2 sets of books - on the one hand, he probably does mostly believe what he is saying here. On the other, he's happy for bullies and thugs on his forum to browbeat dissenters into submission.

Notice the language he uses.

Atheism+ is a safe space....
Click to expand...

And the ******** creep out of the woodwork to find excuses to tell these people....
Click to expand...


See, its safe, but if you disagree or have questions, you're an *******.

Seriously, you cannot get comedy this good anywhere else. Viva PZ!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom