Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Posted at the same time as your last post, and then I left the house without checking the thread.

But if you really want to complain about how you've been treated, then perhaps you should consider who it was who came in to this thread with an aggressive tone.



I don't think that making up opinions and ascribing them to others really improves your sceptical credentials.
Click to expand...

Also, feel free to cut my post in thirds.
 
Oh my.....

We appear to have a skepticism and critical thinking prohibition over at A+. The OP in this thread demands that nobody play "devil's advocate" and instead accept the blog postings linked to in the post as being the absolute truth.

This is backed up by a moderator reinforcing the demand.

What is the OP afraid of ? Somebody punching the name of the activist into Google, discovering controversy over the activist and questioning whether this activist's accounts of the way things are going down might just be an embellishment ? OBEY ME OR I'LL HATE YOU !! Like that OP doesn't hate enough people as it is.

Moving on.

Here we have atheism fail

We have a self described gnu atheist railing on about white people deriding the brown people's religion because it's more important to call people racists than examine the ridiculousness of some religious customs.

I understand it is confusing, all these conflicting social justice values. Just where is a SJW supposed to make a stand ? Do they go with the religion is oppressive or the standard white people suck meme ? Decisions, decisions. One would think that simply reading the label on the tin, Atheism+ the decision would be an easy one but sometimes good ole' white guilt takes over and the path that feels more righteous draws the critic to where they feel they can do the most damage.

Confusing you say ??? An example you ask ? OK

Here we have a Muslim going after the FEMEN activists because they're too hot for her liking, yet dumps this paragraph in the middle of her essay.

In Muslim countries patriarchy is disguised as modesty. Patriarchy there demands that we cover ourselves to take on the burden of ensuring our own protection, and it removes the responsibility of men to govern themselves respectfully. It creates gender apartheid and all the injustice that follows it.
Click to expand...

So...burqua bad

On the other hand we have this.

Which not only kicks the concept of colour blind racism right in the gonads ( first paragraph ) but says burqua good as well.

It's time for an A+ rebrand, time for them to drop the pretenses of skepticism, critical thinking and atheism and go with what they really are, Victims+
 
Krikkiter said:
I also reserve the right to make up whatever opinions I want. Subscribing them to others, well, that may be something you'll have to verify. As you've seen so far, I'm more than happy to back down when I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay, sure. Please quote where I've accepted Watson's story at face value. I've discussed it more than once in this thread, so you might have to go searching a little, but since you've said that that's what I'm doing, along with saying that I accept anecdotes as evidence, then I assume that you must have recently read posts in which I have done so, so they should be easy for you to find.
 
StrangeCharm said:
I very much agree with this.

Also, I didn't like Carrier's "swell the ranks" language in his speech. For me, talking about atheism isn't with the preset goal of creating more atheists. Maybe to get people to use critical thinking, to educate, but never with the forgone conclusion that the person I am talking to will become "one of us". That sounds a little creepy to me.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the biggest goal any organised group of sceptics and/or atheists should have is to get critical thinking taught in school from a young age. Sure, that wouldn't directly deal with the other issues that they seem to concern themselves with but, in a generation or two, it could well wipe them out entirely.

Yet this is not something I've ever even seen proposed by anyone, let alone campaigned for. Instead I see campaigns focussed on putting atheist messages on busses and overdosing on homeopathic medicine - things which gain publicity but don't seem to actually accomplish much.

Of course, it wouldn't be a panacea, as people would still be people, but imagine if everybody were taught how to think, how to evaluate claims, about checking sources, and that you shouldn't just accept something because you're told it, from a young age. So that it's second nature for everybody to approach everything like that. That everybody did it without even thinking.

I can't imagine why that's not the number 1 goal of all such groups.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Okay, sure. Please quote where I've accepted Watson's story at face value. I've discussed it more than once in this thread, so you might have to go searching a little, but since you've said that that's what I'm doing, along with saying that I accept anecdotes as evidence, then I assume that you must have recently read posts in which I have done so, so they should be easy for you to find.
Click to expand...


Seriously, what are you on about? Where the **** did I say that you specifically accepted RW's story at face value? I don't assume anything. *Shakes head.

Ok, it may be reasonably assumed that some people in this thread have taken RW's story at face value but at this point I'm only inviting you to do so. Yes, rhetoric. Do so or not. Don't care. But please, semantics do nothing for anyone. We're skeptics right?

No, the 'anecdotes as evidence' thing was my mistake. I've already apologised for that. I apologise again sincerely just to make no mistake.

But again, I'm more than happy to be shown to be wrong. If I've addressed you directly and said that you specifically accept RW's story on face value, please show me. I may well be wrong. I'm not afraid of looking like a dickhead.

But that's beside the point. Mine remains - rather, my assertion. That is: RW fabricated the whole story to further her career in the A/S community.

Once again, I have no proof and there's no way I could have any. This is only opinion. People will eventually make their own minds up.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I invite Rebecca to come here and refute my assertions. Obviously, if she has nothing to hide it should be easy.
 
zooterkin said:
Difficult, given that she's been banned from here.
Click to expand...


Either a deal could be done (though I doubt she has the same ip now anyway), or she can go to the slymepit and sort things. I'm sure all will be forgiven {from both sides?!one!?]

:D ;)
 
Krikkiter said:
Seriously, what are you on about? Where the **** did I say that you specifically accepted RW's story at face value?
Click to expand...

...

Krikkiter said:
Accept it on face value if you like, but I'm gonna take the more skeptical rout thanks.
Click to expand...


Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity in quote. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krikkiter said:
V+ it is then?
Click to expand...

I like it :)

As a self described movement, they've never really grown beyond their original cabal of founding members. It seems that most every person who joins their forums manages to get banned
 
Stout said:
I like it :)

As a self described movement, they've never really grown beyond their original cabal of founding members...
Click to expand...

I still can't see the forum disclaimer that the forum is not the "movement". I would have that thought that you'd make that pretty obvious. Is there information on this "movement" outside of all the flurry of October-January blog posts and youtube videos?

I can accept that claim by the a+pologists, but I'd like to see the evidence.
 
qwints said:
Hence atheism plus other stuff. Is this a branding thing or do you have a problem with secular humanists?
Click to expand...

what has secular humanism got to do with it. you can be a secular humanist without being an atheist. you can be a neo-nazi whilst being an atheist. you can be most things without atheism bearing any relevence.

so, as asked by another poster. what are your views on secular humanism? why is an atheist who doesnt agree with a+ not an atheist?
 
Diogenes said:
I still can't see the forum disclaimer that the forum is not the "movement". I would have that thought that you'd make that pretty obvious. Is there information on this "movement" outside of all the flurry of October-January blog posts and youtube videos?

I can accept that claim by the a+pologists, but I'd like to see the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes It's kind of a funny thing. While reading another SJ forum this thread in particular, I clicked on the link in the OP and read an article that had a comments section to end all comments sections when it came to men suffering abuse at the hands of women. eg a guy growing up in a smae sex household where his mother and her partner used to beat the crap out of him just because he was a boy.

That article no longer exists and it looks like it's been reissued with the comments section removed. In that comments section there was someone going on about V+ and linking to Setar's I was there, watching them rip down those posers thread.

A+ was described, by a commenter, as the new moment in atheism. I'm thinking occupy here and wondering what this "movement" is going to do so I started reading, daily.

It was a total gong show, one we're all familiar with and as an atheist it made me cower in embarrassment. I knew I can't fight them on their own turf as I was already familiar with the whole safe space concept however, like all the other things written on Vplusses glossy brochure, the movement idea proved to be nothing more than the members posting on an internet forum.
 
Stout said:
We have a self described gnu atheist railing on about white people deriding the brown people's religion because it's more important to call people racists than examine the ridiculousness of some religious customs.

I understand it is confusing, all these conflicting social justice values. Just where is a SJW supposed to make a stand ? Do they go with the religion is oppressive or the standard white people suck meme ? Decisions, decisions. One would think that simply reading the label on the tin, Atheism+ the decision would be an easy one but sometimes good ole' white guilt takes over and the path that feels more righteous draws the critic to where they feel they can do the most damage.

Which not only kicks the concept of colour blind racism right in the gonads ( first paragraph ) but says burqua good as well.

It's time for an A+ rebrand, time for them to drop the pretenses of skepticism, critical thinking and atheism and go with what they really are, Victims+
Click to expand...

My turn to say this has come up in this thread before :D.

Apparently, brown peoples' religions are exempt from criticism by SJWs. Why? Because they're not white. Why does their color matter? Because of colonialism 100 years ago. It reminds me of white cops that shrug their shoulders and ignore black-on-black violence. The SJWs don't know how closely they mirror racism when they argue this. Need I go on?

What's colour blind racism? That's a new one for me. Sounds really oxymoronic.
 
Krikkiter said:
Either a deal could be done (though I doubt she has the same ip now anyway), or she can go to the slymepit and sort things. I'm sure all will be forgiven {from both sides?!one!?]

:D ;)
Click to expand...

Um, no. A ban here is permanent. This thread is public, though; she can read it if she wants (no sign-in is required) and she could reply at another forum if she so chose. What you could not do is post here, have her answer questions/comments elsewhere, and quote her replies here. Such "posting by proxy" is a rule breach here.

So, the slymepit it is then.
 
Mr. Scott said:
My turn to say this has come up in this thread before :D.

Apparently, brown peoples' religions are exempt from criticism by SJWs. Why? Because they're not white. Why does their color matter? Because of colonialism 100 years ago. It reminds me of white cops that shrug their shoulders and ignore black-on-black violence. The SJWs don't know how closely they mirror racism when they argue this. Need I go on?

What's colour blind racism? That's a new one for me. Sounds really oxymoronic.
Click to expand...


Colour blind racism is the rule where you, as a white person, are required to see all PoC as being members of a disadvantaged group. If, for instance, you say "I don't see race, I see people and treat everyone equally" you are WRONG, you are a racist for failing to rate that PoC's group membership above any other privilege you may percieve that individual as having. Even if he is, say, the POTUS.
 
Krikkiter said:
[ot]. I do have a belief that there are no gods and that this can only be a belief.
Click to expand...

My version of atheism is a contingent belief that there are no gods, which is open to refutation by many conceivable sorts of evidence (I've thought up a few dozen which shouldn't be that hard, if any gods are reading).

I have a stronger belief that we do not have souls. Personality, memory, reasoning ability are parts of the brain, so what's left for this "soul" thing? I can't conceive of anything consistent with life after death, other than some non-detectable mirror-image of a brain (that doesn't reflect some forms of brain damage), which just seems completely silly to assume.

Also in my environment, a majority are non-religious, but most believe in an unspecified something after death. As you'd expect, this therefore bothers me more on a personal level. Religion, meh. It died.

Is there an a-soulist movement yet?

p.s. Apology for off-topic post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom