Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Last edited:
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
I got a different message from it. P. Z. Myers re-affirmed his status as a petulant bully with his cyber-shrieking over Gelato Guy. His vicious refusal to accept what seems to be a sincere apology underscores the emotional boorishness which his "us vs them" worldview shares with the likes of Fred Phelps.Damn it
I meant to post this one:
TL;DR:
- An apology is only worth something if Atheism+ says it is.
Those who wish to avoid appearing as irrational and uncivil as Myers should probably accept what seems to be a sincere apology from Richard Carrier. It's been a while since I read it, but my recollection is that he was sincerely sorry for some of the things he said, then started defending others and embarked on an exercise in academic hairsplitting about what's a proper insult which quickly made my eyes glaze over. I don't remember if he said he was sorry he called everybody who disagreed with him C.H.U.D. or not, but if he apologized for that, I would accept his apology.
It seems to me that the "make an example" tactic is best employed when the behavior one wants to make an example of is widespread. If sexual harrassment is widespread at conferences, or atheists are frequently being refused service, making examples of one or two offenders may be an appropriate way to discourage the behavior. When the example being made is about the only example to be found, I'd think dealing with the problem one-on-one would be all that would be required.
Acleron
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,290
He may have apologised and he may be sincerely sorry it happened, but does he believe he was wrong in his sentiments on the matter?
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
I believe Gelato Guy thinks it was wrong to attempt to ban people who were attending the skeptic's convention. I'm not so sure that Richard Carrier thinks people who continue to disagree with him are better than C.H.U.D., but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
WillyWonka
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 218
There is a difference between apologizing because you realize that you did something wrong, and apologizing because you are pressured to do so. I believe that Carrier falls in the second camp.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Especially when it's a half-assed non-apology apology. I have no doubt that Carrier was completely sincere in his "if you are not with us, you are against us" and "kick to CHUDs to the curb" post on FtB.
Last edited:
ATHEISM +
Sorry, guys. The symbol + has been used by another religion.
May I suggest some alternatives?
atheism -
atheism ^
atheism /
atheism =
No.
mutile
Muse
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 755
If Russell Glasser is correct and feminism is simply believing women should have equal rights to men, does masculism mean exactly the same thing?
devnull
Philosopher
Glasser is right about one thing - Atheism+ is merely a subset of all atheists that includes other things. No different than having an atheist chess group or whatever.
However, they called themselves "Atheism+", and then abused anyone who disagreed. This is like naming your atheist chess club "atheism" and then calling all the go players retards. The fact that they cant see this makes me question everything, as I thought these guys (in as much as they are skeptics) were relatively sane.
However, they called themselves "Atheism+", and then abused anyone who disagreed. This is like naming your atheist chess club "atheism" and then calling all the go players retards. The fact that they cant see this makes me question everything, as I thought these guys (in as much as they are skeptics) were relatively sane.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I quite like this perspective by YT GirlWritesWhat (GWW) on the Watson/Atheism+ issue:
Summary: (as best I can) She rebuttes a certain criticism against feminism's patriarchy theory as being all encompassing and that it is not a good argument against it. She then discusses how men are more likely to be victims of violence but seem less concerned with it even if they have experienced it while women are the safest demographic in society but feel more victimised. She argues that rationally it would make sense to try and allay womens disproportionate levels of fears and take steps to help men to avoid being victimised. She says feminist theory of patriarchy is garbage and a faith based position. She says there is a reason why those at Atheism+ that claim to be apart of a rationalist community do not take this view, saying that the kind of people who are in Atheism+ arent atheists for intellectual reasons, they were attracted to atheism for emotional reasons. So for example, atheism was attractive to this kind of feminist not because atheism is rational but because of how they perceive Christianity, Islam etc as being misogynistic in how they treat women. GWW argues that when skeptics used arguments that moved away from the purely intellectual and started arguing that the religions were immoral, they started appealing to this crowd and drew them in. She says their Atheism+ beliefs are no different a thought process to their thought process' that got them involved with the skeptic community in the first place. In that their feminism isnt based on the intellectual, but on feelings and emotion because thats exactly why they are atheists because they feel emotionally insulted by religion.
Last edited:
Walter Ego
Illuminator
More fallout from the schism in the Atheist/Sceptic community. Blair Scott has resigned his position as the Director of Outreach for American Atheists.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Polling the Membership for Demographics
I love where this conversation is heading.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3178
Someone brought up the idea of putting together some demographics and apparently no one knows how the software works, so they can't ask a techie for some basics, so they're proposing to do it by poll. Anonymous and totally voluntary, of course. Would anyone who works with statistics like to go explain to them just how bad an idea that is.
But then it trends towards humor, although they don't know it. One concerned citizen (they specialize in being concerned, remember) suggested that they make it clear to people that they were not required to answer questions they wanted to opt out of and also make it clear that it's a "safe" poll.
I'm waiting for someone to propose that they put a Trigger Warning on it. That's coming up; I'm sure.
I love where this conversation is heading.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3178
Someone brought up the idea of putting together some demographics and apparently no one knows how the software works, so they can't ask a techie for some basics, so they're proposing to do it by poll. Anonymous and totally voluntary, of course. Would anyone who works with statistics like to go explain to them just how bad an idea that is.
But then it trends towards humor, although they don't know it. One concerned citizen (they specialize in being concerned, remember) suggested that they make it clear to people that they were not required to answer questions they wanted to opt out of and also make it clear that it's a "safe" poll.
I'm waiting for someone to propose that they put a Trigger Warning on it. That's coming up; I'm sure.
- Status