Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moss said:
For the record: I was not trying to make an argument, I was just looking at the Alexa statistics and wrote what the help text says about the colours.
Click to expand...
Sorry if you thought I was confronting you on those - I was really just thinking aloud, to the thread in general.
:)
 
Years ago when I got started down the road that led me to identify as a Skeptic and an Atheist, I heard a lot about how few blacks (in America) were atheists and skeptics, and how women were more religious than men. I know studies are still being done on these topics, and people are trying to get more involved, but I somehow doubt the answer is simply "have harassment policies, get rid of t-shirts, and invite any woman to speak, qualified or not". I'm not sure what the rest of the world is like, but I know the demographics are (perhaps slowly) changing here in the States. I also consider what studies have shown is that people tend to want to fit in and be around their own "kind" (shades of Ken Ham). People want to be comfortable, and I think, and may be completely wrong as I have no data, that as long as the first things we identify as are race or sex, people in general will not want to attend functions that are attended by the majority of what they do not identify as. Obviously some people can do that already.

The other thought I had is based on some of what I heard as reasons why people don't attend - they think that there is nothing for them, or topics that are not attractive to them. It's ok to hear a talk about vaccines from someone with no medical or even science background (although I'd prefer they have one of those), but how about a topic like - teaching skeptical thinking with no money - something we face in schools all the time.

I also have to wonder about the demographics - most of this seems to be focused on the big (TAM, Skepticon, etc) - what are the local groups like? Are they "havens for old white men" (not from what I hear), and they are where the real work gets done. Dog and pony shows are fine, but most things happen at the local level where (to use yet one more cliche) the rubber meets the road. I know there has been an effort mentioned by the A+theism crowd to brand any local group that thinks like they do in the basics (I'd say that's pretty much everyone, even if we disagree with other things) as A+ by default, so they can market their brand name.

In all the posts I've read, I have seen a lot of comments on "brand name" etc - all these marketing terms - one of the first things done, before they even published what they stood for, was to design a logo! Is there a large number of non-scientists, say, people who've studied communications or marketing, in this group, or is that just a function of our consumer culture?
 
Badger3k said:
In all the posts I've read, I have seen a lot of comments on "brand name" etc - all these marketing terms - one of the first things done, before they even published what they stood for, was to design a logo! Is there a large number of non-scientists, say, people who've studied communications or marketing, in this group, or is that just a function of our consumer culture?
Click to expand...

Does sticking a plus sign on an already existing logo really count as design?
 
It seems to me that JREF and TAM is particular should stay away from that cesspool as much as they can by focussing their work on the paranormal, CAM, and the woo. Getting involved in atheism right now would be a big bag of hurt.
 
The really bizarre thing is that I've now been banned/blocked by two people I think are generally intelligent & interesting (if not behaving badly at the moment) - Richard Carrier & Melody Helmsley. For making the SLIGHTEST critique / pointed question about this whole '+' BS. How does blocking someone who is 95% on the same page help out a fledgling movement? And why the need for such vitriol?

The worst I've ever done at a TAM is compliment a woman on her shoes. As a gay man, I think that is within my rights.
 
WillyWonka said:
It seems to me that JREF and TAM is particular should stay away from that cesspool as much as they can by focussing their work on the paranormal, CAM, and the woo. Getting involved in atheism right now would be a big bag of hurt.
Click to expand...

JREF & TAM have always been clear that they're about skepticism and not atheism. While many skeptics are indeed, atheist (and perhaps even A+ers) that isn't a prerequisite to 'belong'. I agree that given the crap flying around out there at the moment, it is wise to avoid it - although I would still hope they invite atheist speakers to present at TAMs. Just the right ones, of course. :covereyes
 
Antiquehunter said:
The really bizarre thing is that I've now been banned/blocked by two people I think are generally intelligent & interesting (if not behaving badly at the moment) - Richard Carrier & Melody Helmsley. For making the SLIGHTEST critique / pointed question about this whole '+' BS. How does blocking someone who is 95% on the same page help out a fledgling movement? And why the need for such vitriol?

The worst I've ever done at a TAM is compliment a woman on her shoes. As a gay man, I think that is within my rights.
Click to expand...

They are very touchy.
 
bpesta22 said:
Here's an example of why using the word atheism with a + makes atheists in general look like morons to outsiders:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom
Click to expand...

PZ Myers quoted in the article.

It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an a-hole. I suggest you form your own label, 'A-hole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the A-hole Atheists: A*.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/
Click to expand...

Wow! Isn't this just the guy we want to be the public face of American atheism? :mad:

ETA:

Is is just me or are some of these people genuinely deranged over this issue?
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
PZ Myers quoted in the article.



Wow! Isn't this just the guy we want to be the public face of American atheism? :mad:

ETA:

Is is just me or are some of these people genuinely deranged over this issue?
Click to expand...

A moderated public debate would be entertaining. The theme that seems most relevant is: Can one be good without a+?

Who wants to join the "I'm not a douche bag despite disagreement..." side?!
 
Last edited:
bpesta22 said:
A moderated public debate would be entertaining. The theme that seems most relevant is: Can one be good without a+?

Who wants to join the "I'm not a douche bag despite disagreement..." side?!
Click to expand...

I would, but I tend to be a douche bag even when agreeing.
 
bpesta22 said:
A moderated public debate would be entertaining. The theme that seems most relevant is: Can one be good without a+?

Who wants to join the "I'm not a douche bag despite disagreement..." side?!
Click to expand...

Myers should definitely keep up this foaming-at-the-mouth line of attack. It will play really well when he debates this issue. It will also drive anyone away from A+ who is not already insane.
 
Walter Ego said:
Myers should definitely keep up this foaming-at-the-mouth line of attack. It will play really well when he debates this issue. It will also drive anyone away from A+ who is not already insane.
Click to expand...

There must be a few of these superior type atheists who are dismayed by this nonsense. I wonder if any of them will be brave enough to complain publicly, especially knowing the treatment they will get?
 
Walter Ego said:
Wow! Isn't this just the guy we want to be the public face of American atheism? :mad:

ETA:

Is is just me or are some of these people genuinely deranged over this issue?
Click to expand...

Ha ha! First Richard Carrier, now PZ. What's the deal with these angry white males, huh?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Ha ha! First Richard Carrier, now PZ. What's the deal with these angry white males, huh?
Click to expand...

I'm quite pleased to find that comments I've made about Myers in the past on this group seem to be becoming the consensus. Spend your career treating other people like crap, and sooner or later everyone is a target.
 
Well, let's form a committee and explore the possibility of no-name atheists challenging these elite thinkers to a public debate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom