Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thing has reached the media!

Their symbol is very similar to that of Non-Believers Giving Aid, the creation of their arch-villain Dawkins.

Non-Believers+Giving+Aid.jpg


Skeeve said:
Which rape threats?
Click to expand...

Rebecca Watson reportedly recieves rape threats on a regular basis.
 
qarnos said:
I can see some interesting parallels between Atheism/Atheism+ and C/C++.
Click to expand...


You apparently are unfamiliar with Baptist++. It has several self-evident statements and functions. The following are typical:
INERRANT Pi = 3;
DO UNTIL The_Second_Coming;
CREATE universe;
DISREGARD evidence;
WHILE sinful INVOKE Baptism;​
The language, for the most part, is objection-oriented.
 
Walter Ego said:
Oh, dear! Somebody got some 'splainin' to do. :D

[qimg]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/2402/products/nbga_front_shirt_large.jpg?100389[/qimg]

Non-Believers Giving Aid official T-shirt with white ‘A-plus’ logo over left breast. Read more about the project at http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net.
Click to expand...

It's all the more funny because Dawkins is their villain: He is a white old male, academic, reasonably affluent and his comments provoked the Elevatorgate war.
 
Myriad said:
Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?


No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."
Click to expand...


Carrier has gotten a lot more flack in that comments thread about the use of "retarded" (and also "lame"), and has modified his position on that (though he's standing his ground on "lame"). So, he's steered away from that particular hypocrisy, at least.

If anyone who commented about it in the comments thread was motivated by my comments here, my thanks and blessings. (None of the commenters there was me. As a non-atheist skeptic, my opinions are irrelevant there; even my comments about it here are a bit out of place. It's not my group or my concern, so as I mentioned in the Thunderf00t thread, I'm being a bit of a dick by discussing it at all.)

I'm not completely without hope that something useful to somebody could come out of the A+ thing. But my interest is common ground, and withdrawing from any common ground (and then saturation-bombing it) appears to be high on their list of priorities at present. We'll see if my being allowed to post here is someday held up by the A+ clique as proof that this forum is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------

One of the more divisive present issues appears to be the abuse of the concept of privilege. And that is quite understandable. Privilege exists and can influence people's positions on things. But making that point a legitimate part of an argument requires, well, an actual argument for what the privilege is and how it's affecting the issue.

My previous accusation of Carrier exhibiting "neurotypical privilege" was intended sarcastically rather than seriously. Claiming that an argument, any argument, can be dismissed due to the arguer's privilege alone is fallacious. Even if we accept as a premise that the arguer is indeed arguing from privilege, it's still poisoning the well, but usually that is not demonstrated, except by affirming the consequent: "People who argue from privilege argue X; you are arguing X; therefore you are arguing from privilege."

And yet, even that fallacious argument is apparently too much trouble for some people to bother actually stating. Instead they say they are bored with repeatedly discussing "the 101" and tell the arguer to go read about privilege. What that invariably actually means is, "I can't be bothered to affirm the consequent for you."

In terms of this forum's MA, it's also, very simply, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

So "privilege," when used fallaciously in that way as it almost always is, brings up the rear in a long parade of ad hominems that endeavor in effect to deny the person's capability to make any argument at all. A rights activist dismissing an opponent's argument as "privileged" without rationale is exactly like a conspiracy theorist calling a skeptic "brainwashed by the media," a Communist calling a counterrevolutionary "Bourgeois indoctrinated," a Christian calling an atheist "demon possessed" or "deceived by Satan," and an old-school sexist calling an argumentative woman "hysterical." (The latter literally meaning, "that's just your uterus talking.")

The potential pitfall, then, of adding the + to Atheism+ is the risk of dropping skepticism and rationalism in order to turn the + up to eleven. That hazard is not avoided merely by listing skepticism and rationalism on a "things we like" bullet point list. It is essential to actually practice them.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Carrier has gotten a lot more flack in that comments thread about the use of "retarded" (and also "lame"), and has modified his position on that (though he's standing his ground on "lame"). So, he's steered away from that particular hypocrisy, at least.

If anyone who commented about it in the comments thread was motivated by my comments here, my thanks and blessings. (None of the commenters there was me. As a non-atheist skeptic, my opinions are irrelevant there; even my comments about it here are a bit out of place. It's not my group or my concern, so as I mentioned in the Thunderf00t thread, I'm being a bit of a dick by discussing it at all.)

I'm not completely without hope that something useful to somebody could come out of the A+ thing. But my interest is common ground, and withdrawing from any common ground (and then saturation-bombing it) appears to be high on their list of priorities at present. We'll see if my being allowed to post here is someday held up by the A+ clique as proof that this forum is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------

One of the more divisive present issues appears to be the abuse of the concept of privilege. And that is quite understandable. Privilege exists and can influence people's positions on things. But making that point a legitimate part of an argument requires, well, an actual argument for what the privilege is and how it's affecting the issue.

My previous accusation of Carrier exhibiting "neurotypical privilege" was intended sarcastically rather than seriously. Claiming that an argument, any argument, can be dismissed due to the arguer's privilege alone is fallacious. Even if we accept as a premise that the arguer is indeed arguing from privilege, it's still poisoning the well, but usually that is not demonstrated, except by affirming the consequent: "People who argue from privilege argue X; you are arguing X; therefore you are arguing from privilege."

And yet, even that fallacious argument is apparently too much trouble for some people to bother actually stating. Instead they say they are bored with repeatedly discussing "the 101" and tell the arguer to go read about privilege. What that invariably actually means is, "I can't be bothered to affirm the consequent for you."

In terms of this forum's MA, it's also, very simply, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

So "privilege," when used fallaciously in that way as it almost always is, brings up the rear in a long parade of ad hominems that endeavor in effect to deny the person's capability to make any argument at all. A rights activist dismissing an opponent's argument as "privileged" without rationale is exactly like a conspiracy theorist calling a skeptic "brainwashed by the media," a Communist calling a counterrevolutionary "Bourgeois indoctrinated," a Christian calling an atheist "demon possessed" or "deceived by Satan," and an old-school sexist calling an argumentative woman "hysterical." (The latter literally meaning, "that's just your uterus talking.")

The potential pitfall, then, of adding the + to Atheism+ is the risk of dropping skepticism and rationalism in order to turn the + up to eleven. That hazard is not avoided merely by listing skepticism and rationalism on a "things we like" bullet point list. It is essential to actually practice them.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I suspect that this forum might well be uncongenial, because it puts all questions of privilege on one side. If someone is something other than a white male middle class skeptic, they don't need to reveal this unless they want to.

In a number of discussions I've had, I've been asked (in some cases, in a very peremptory way) to give my credentials as to belief, ethnicity, background etc. I've always refused, because I don't believe that such considerations should relate to evaluating arguments. If my arguments are flawed, then it should be sufficient to point out the error, without saying that I only think that way because I'm British, or from Ireland, or live in the USA.

Privilege is a concept which appears to be massively abused. There's no doubt that certain groups have advantages inherent to being part of the group, but that doesn't mean that a person's arguments are invalidated. Nor does it mean that other groups don't have their own forms of privilege.
 
lopeyschools said:
Does the skeptical/atheist movement really have a problem with sexism and racisim? I understand there have been a few idiots who have sent death or rape threats, but how big is the problem?
Click to expand...
Yes. But no more than the rest of the populace. Possibly slightly less. Every single one of us is prone to bias. The moment we forget this is when we start to put ourselves on a pedestal and risk ignoring our own potential mistakes. Just cause we can debunk UFOs doesn't mean we're good people.

Atheism is morally no better than any religious belief since we are just as prone to irrational group think.
 
Kahalachan said:
Yes. But no more than the rest of the populace. Possibly slightly less. Every single one of us is prone to bias. The moment we forget this is when we start to put ourselves on a pedestal and risk ignoring our own potential mistakes. Just cause we can debunk UFOs doesn't mean we're good people.

Atheism is morally no better than any religious belief since we are just as prone to irrational group think.
Click to expand...

If this movement had started by saying "Believe what you like, but if you want to participate in this movement, then you will treat people with respect, or you won't be allowed to attend conferences or interact with others" then I think that would have been the basis for something most people could agree with, in theory if not in practice. However, they've decided that abuse, using imagery related to sexuality and physical and mental ability, is absolutely fine, if applied to different people. Courtesy and common ground aren't to be sought.

If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.
 
westprog said:
If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.
Click to expand...

Actually, it already happened. Elevatorgate was at an atheist conference in Ireland. Watson just did not say that atheist conference was not safe.
 
westprog said:
Privilege is a concept which appears to be massively abused. There's no doubt that certain groups have advantages inherent to being part of the group, but that doesn't mean that a person's arguments are invalidated. Nor does it mean that other groups don't have their own forms of privilege.
Click to expand...

I rarely see things eye to eye with you, but here I fully agree.
 
westprog said:
If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.
Click to expand...

Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson. :eek:

Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.
 
Walter Ego said:
Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson. :eek:

Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.
Click to expand...

skepticism != atheism+
 
Walter Ego said:
Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson. :eek:
Click to expand...

Well to be fair the speakers also include Sean Carroll and Matt Dillahunty.

Walter Ego said:
Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.
Click to expand...

It's part of the deal, apparently.
 
Acleron said:
skepticism != atheism+
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that a movement can't become a different movement.

Part of the interest from an outsider is seeing the ways that the arguments and the power struggles play out. Trying to assign the bad ideas and bad behaviour to the other side, and reserve the good thinking and affability to ones own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom