Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Ocelot]

Personally I've been pretty turned off of FTB of late but I'm undecided about this new thing out of the comments on Jen McCreight's blog.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

Seemed like it was a touch dogmatic up until that last point

I wonder if it will catch on. Is there anything to elevate it above the similar offerings of secular humanism in an already crowded marketplace of ideas.

But seriously according to the (official?) twitterfeed no it's not just secular humanism... because they've got a logo.

Personally I have to prefer the Humanist Manifesto III abbreviated as follows

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
Respect for differing yet humane views in an open, secular, democratic, environmentally sustainable society.

 

[Merton]

I rather dislike the tendency of some atheists to attribute to atheism anything more than the rejection of god claims--Alain de Botton, I'm lookin' at you. It's fantastic to be concerned with social justice and prejudice, but these are ethical/political issues, not metaphysical ones. I rarely even mention my atheism anymore, as it is such a miniscule part of who I am.

 

[westprog]

I rather dislike the tendency of some atheists to attribute to atheism anything more than the rejection of god claims--Alain de Botton, I'm lookin' at you. It's fantastic to be concerned with social justice and prejudice, but these are ethical/political issues, not metaphysical ones. I rarely even mention my atheism anymore, as it is such a miniscule part of who I am.

There seem to be two issues here. One is the right of people attending conferences to avoid being harassed and mistreated. This seems to be an entirely reasonable idea. However, this has lead to a more general list of values to which atheists are supposed to subscribe. I can imagine that being more controversial.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I rather dislike the tendency of some atheists to attribute to atheism anything more than the rejection of god claims--Alain de Botton, I'm lookin' at you. It's fantastic to be concerned with social justice and prejudice, but these are ethical/political issues, not metaphysical ones. I rarely even mention my atheism anymore, as it is such a miniscule part of who I am.

I feel the same way. While I do happen to be an atheist, this label only applies to my lack of belief in gods. I also happen to be a guitarist and a motor-sport fan. I don't refer to myself as an "atheist" when describing my positions on things like social issues, ethics or politics. My lack of belief in gods certainly influences my positions regarding a number of issues, but the term "atheist" is inadequate to define me.

 

[The Big Dog]

Atheists plus we care about Religous freedom.

 

[Beerina]

I was hoping it was atheism plus all these amoral orgies I keep hearing are rampant.

 

[Loss Leader]

I rather dislike the tendency of some atheists to attribute to atheism anything more than the rejection of god claims--Alain de Botton, I'm lookin' at you. It's fantastic to be concerned with social justice and prejudice, but these are ethical/political issues, not metaphysical ones. I rarely even mention my atheism anymore, as it is such a miniscule part of who I am.

I think that I have a very strong sense of social justice. I'm an atheist. I'm also a lawyer. I would say that both have helped me refine and concentrate my political beliefs. However, my political beliefs helped interest me in atheism and the law. Which one implies which other? It all seems to be one big mess.

Much like the mess of intertwined noodles that make up the great FSM

 

[Merton]

There seem to be two issues here. One is the right of people attending conferences to avoid being harassed and mistreated.

Ah. I've heard a little about the harassment controversy in the skeptic community, but I didn't think that had anything to do with Atheism Plus. I could see how one would want to restrain atheists' behavior at certain events, but we don't need a new atheism (new New Atheism?) to accomplish that.

 

[Resume]

Does the plus cost extra?

 

[Aepervius]

Personally I've been pretty turned off of FTB of late but I'm undecided about this new thing out of the comments on Jen McCreight's blog.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/



Seemed like it was a touch dogmatic up until that last point

I wonder if it will catch on. Is there anything to elevate it above the similar offerings of secular humanism in an already crowded marketplace of ideas.

But seriously according to the (official?) twitterfeed no it's not just secular humanism... because they've got a logo.

Personally I have to prefer the Humanist Manifesto III abbreviated as follows

Syntactically incorrect.

The next level of atheism is "atheism++"

 

[Merton]

I think that I have a very strong sense of social justice. I'm an atheist. I'm also a lawyer. I would say that both have helped me refine and concentrate my political beliefs. However, my political beliefs helped interest me in atheism and the law. Which one implies which other? It all seems to be one big mess.

Yes, there is a large amount of overlap and atheists tend to share a fair number of values, but those values aren't necessarily attributable to atheism. For example, someone might be an atheist because they were never exposed to religious ideas and have completely different values from atheists who have reached this conclusion through reasoned discourse. A Chinese atheist may not share many values with American atheists because of the difference in cultures. Ascribing a specific set of values to atheists just doesn't work.

 

[Dinwar]

Atheism is a conclusion, nothing more. It's a significant conclusion, but it's not foundational to one's view of life and the universe. Your conclusion is based on SOMETHING--and that something can be incredibly diverse. I often say that atheism is as diverse as theism is, and support it by pointing out that both Marx and Ayn Rand were atheists.

All atheism means--the entirety of its meaning--is "a lack of belief in any deities". The rest is something else, which may be related to atheism but which does not necessarily stem FROM atheism. Those topics should properly be addressed as separate issues.

Let's take the first example: social justice. It's entirely plausible to conclude that gods don't exist and to develop some theory of social justice from the same dataset (specifically, atheistic biologists tend to think this way in my experience). On the other hand, it's equally plausible that one can look at a different dataset and conclude that gods don't exist, and that societies don't exist (ie, societies are nothing more than large numbers of individuals). One can also conclude that gods don't exist, and that it's your obligation to BECOME a god and society must bow to your whims as its proper master, and that you define justice as you wish. That latter is completely irrational, but nothing says that atheism necessarily makes one rational (you can become an atheist for insane reasons just as much as for sane ones).

 

[Kahalachan]

I'm a super atheist. I believe SETI is too similar to prayer. In fact, I'm still torn about using the internet to talk to people I'm not sure actually exist. Gonna need photo verification from every person in this topic.

 

[Ocelot]

Ascribing a specific set of values to atheists just doesn't work.

Indeed but that would be ∵Atheism rather than Atheism+

As I read it Atheism+ isn't supposed to be all the opinions an atheist is supposed to have because they're an atheist.

Instead it is a manifesto that includes atheism. I assume the notion is to suggest that these all spring from critical thinking. For which I find I have a certain empathy. It's all very well saying that there's no logical reason why a lack of theistic belief should result in any particular stance on social issues but nonetheless in practice there does appear to be a constituency of like minded godless liberals.

Yet I can't help thinking that in practice it's very much like the "The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers". That this creed exists as a shortcut to excluding people for holding certain opinions and that sort of thing doesn't spring from critical thinking at all.

 

[Dinwar]

but nonetheless in practice there does appear to be a constituency of like minded godless liberals.

There's certainly a correlation, but equally certainly it 1) isn't as strong as many suppose (Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy, for example), and 2) doesn't imply any causal connection.

If a group of like-minded atheists wants to devise a name for themselves and have a formal organization, I say good on them. Seriously, one of the things that religions provide that atheism currently fails utterly at is providing a sence of community--my wife and I had a fair amount of trouble in Alabama because we weren't members of any church, and that's how people assumed you'd meet friends back there, to give an anecdotal example. Atheists offering a similar sense of community and companionship would be a fantastic thing to see. However, in my opinion using the term Atheism+ has a lot of implications that simply aren't right. First, it implies to outsiders that their views are representative fo atheism as a whole, which isn't true. Second, it implies to atheists that they see themselves as better than your average run-of-the-mill atheist. They've ascended to a higher plain of atheism or something. It invites a standoffishness that isn't good--it encourages isolation of the group, and us vs. them mentality. And we can do better than that.

 

[franklinveaux]

I rather dislike the tendency of some atheists to attribute to atheism anything more than the rejection of god claims--Alain de Botton, I'm lookin' at you. It's fantastic to be concerned with social justice and prejudice, but these are ethical/political issues, not metaphysical ones. I rarely even mention my atheism anymore, as it is such a miniscule part of who I am.

Well, yes and no.

I get where you're coming from, and I agree: the absence of an affirmative belief in supernatural deities has nothing on the face of it to do with politics, social justice, or anything else.

However, in the US and in some other countries, political parties, ideology, laws, social mores, and political platforms are largely bound up in religious beliefs. When one lives in a nominally progressive, First World nation which has had a president in recent history who has said "atheists should not be citizens; this is one nation under God" or a political party platform that is largely rationalized on a particular interpretation of a particular holy scripture, it becomes a lot harder to say that "being an atheist" has nothing to do with politics or social ideas.

I feel the same way. While I do happen to be an atheist, this label only applies to my lack of belief in gods. I also happen to be a guitarist and a motor-sport fan. I don't refer to myself as an "atheist" when describing my positions on things like social issues, ethics or politics. My lack of belief in gods certainly influences my positions regarding a number of issues, but the term "atheist" is inadequate to define me.

On the other hand, it's rare that you would be in a context where people would claim that your skill as a guitarist, or your right to participate in motor sports, should depend on your theistic beliefs or lack thereof. On the other hand, when it comes to atheism and politics, that IS a claim we hear. So in that way, being an atheist is different from being a guitarist or being a motor sports fan as it relates to thinks like politics or social systems.

I was hoping it was atheism plus all these amoral orgies I keep hearing are rampant.

In my experience, moral orgies are more fun. They take more work to set up, though.

Yet I can't help thinking that in practice it's very much like the "The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers". That this creed exists as a shortcut to excluding people for holding certain opinions and that sort of thing doesn't spring from critical thinking at all.

On the other hand, the notion that all ideas, and all behaviors, are equally 'worthy' and that there is no value in promoting any one set of ideas or behaviors over another doesn't hold up very well, either.

 

[Ausmerican]

Does the plus cost extra?

Not if you ACT NOW!!
Call now and we will throw in an extra atheism FREE!!
(just pay the shipping and handling)
That's right! Two atheisms for one unbelievably low price!!
(plus shipping and handling)
Order within the next 10 minutes and we'll throw in a free "Shrug if you're agnostic" bumper sticker!!
(while supplies last, one per customer)

 

[zeggman]

That "atheism plus" manifesto was way too dogmatic for my taste. Especially the cult-leader-speak of denouncing and shunning those who have the wrong sort of ideas. I'll opt out of that nonsense without being pushed.

As for sense of community, there are thousands of meet ups in my area, and probably dozens in any medium-sized city. In my experience, attempting to establish a community based on "atheism" has been less than satisfying; I'm happier with the people I meet through shared interests. Frequently they turn out to be atheists too, but we don't have to bore each other talking about religion.

 

[shawmutt]

Sounds Double-Plus Good!

 

[Myriad]

I recommend holding off until the Atheism SE comes out.