Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Scott said:
There is no free thought on FreeThoughtBlogs or A+. I see the antithesis of skepticism and critical thinking. I'd be really interested to know how qwints reconciles this which, to me, must require epic cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Reconciles what?
 
WillyWonka said:
Back to A+ forums, FreeHugs1, a new member, has made the mortal sin of questioning "check your privilege", which quickly sent him to the dungeon for one week. He did not last one day. Setar being the High Executioner. CeePolk absence was glaring.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, freehugs self-identified as a black woman.

Freehugs also committed the sin, the secret sin that apparently never made it into the rules, of using the phrase "walking on eggshells" The mods all agreed

eg from the mods thread.

Lovely said:
I swear I'm tempted to add one day bans for not only the phrase "walking on eggshells" but also for anyone who claims there's censorship. Tiresome.
Click to expand...

If we head over to page three of the hello, I'm Gaius thread we have something really funny. There's an inner sanctum member telling a poster they better walk on eggshells followed by the ceepolk agreeing the phrase should lead to a one day ban.

Grimalkin said:
Also, you damn well better walk on eggshells here because the only other option is walking on people. And I'd rather you tip toe around people than stomp all comfortably on them like you are now.
Click to expand...

and

ceepolk said:
I approve. it's an indirect way of calling people hysterical or to accuse them of overreacting or of being unreasonable, so i'm pretty much in favor of instant one day ban when the walking on eggshells card gets played.
Click to expand...

From this exchange we can infer that the phrase "walking on eggshells" is secretly reserved for the exclusive use of inner sanctum members and strictly off limits to the noobs. Maybe freehugs will run across the these exchanges in her week off to "read more".

So why did the white male moderator give the black woman noob a week off instead of the one day agreed upon by the mods ? I'd like to think it was for questioning the dogma however more sinister motivations may be at play here.

Social justice is fun.
 
There's no censorship here and if you disagree, then we'll delete your comment and ban you for a week! :mad:
 
It's astounding though, isn't it?
A lot of the posters on the A+ forum are clearly intelligent and well educated individuals, so surely they can see the hypocrisy and double standards that they uphold?
Maybe they can and they just don't think it's a bad thing?
 
Could someone who had a better night's sleep than I had please decipher this blogpost from PZ Myers? The future will not be the past

PZ Myers said:
I want to be really clear about something. I am an atheist. I care deeply about the atheist movement. I’m also an angry anti-theist, and I want to see religion kicked off its pedestal. I’m also a scientist, and think reason and evidence and scientific thought aren’t just good ideas, but the best ideas humanity has ever had, and also the essential ideas that we need for survival and progress. I want a strong atheist movement, because that’s how these ideas will get advanced into the mainstream. We’re not going to conquer the world by scattering into a rabble of divided loners.
Click to expand...

I remember the days when Myers actually acted on this. Except for a few nitpicks that I wont even bother to spell out here, I completely agree with this sentiment.

PZ Myers said:
We’re in adapt-or-die mode right now and all the time.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Or is that just atheismplus? Dawkins and Tyson don't seem to be struggling to keep going into oblivion. They are a rarity in that they are two scientists who have actually made it into popular culture. They are doing exactly what you asked for, that is advancing that idea into the mainstream.

PZ Myers said:
I sympathize. Some of them don’t even idolize science, and they actually dare to criticize the actions taken in the name of science.
Click to expand...

(He is referring here to women and non-whites becoming active skeptics and atheists.) But wait, didn't you write earlier that science was the best idea humanity ever came up with. Now that is negotiable, no? What in the bloody world does this guy mean?

PZ Myers said:
Oh, wait. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe there are other non-scientific goals that are also worth pursuing, and that doesn’t mean we have to abandon science — I can still be an advocate for it myself — but it does mean I don’t get to remake everyone into a clone of me.
Click to expand...

Yes, like secularism!:p However, what you seem to really want is to turn skepticism into a left-wing political movement. That is what people don't like.
 
The future will not be the past
Click to expand...

We need Michael Steele to get some urban suburban hip-hop credibility from the projects up in here! Can I get a "what what"?

Apparently there is a lot of talk about YA novels going on in the comments, but I read and critique YA novels and I have no clue what they are talking about. Same with the "jrock" example.

Kushrenada said it better:

"The emotions of those who are thought beautiful are always full of sorrow, and honored tradition disappears in the cry of the weak. Winners of a battle will eventually decline in power, and become losers, and then those losers will cultivate a new leader."

"Treize, what are you trying to get at?"

"I'm telling you I want to be a loser."
Click to expand...

But he was talking about war and world peace. I have no idea what Myers is talking about, but I am pretty sure blogging doesn't quite justify such flowery language.

Generally there is a silly contradiction. Tell me, how much larger is the Atheism+ Forum and FTB group than the big name organizations? How much faster are they growing?
 
I don't know. PZ's stuff sort of reads like he's having second thoughts on building walls. The guy used to write good science. I tend to agree with his beliefs/credo when it comes to atheism and feminism... at least the underlying beliefs. But we differ on his need to be so In Your Face about it.

Maybe the opportunities to speak and present are beginning to dry up. (And in PZ's case, I doubt it's the money - more the attention and limelight.) The cynic in me wants to think it's an investment in self-interest, but it may just be that he's looked at the calendar and realized that he's not gaining any traction outside the same supporting voices and he's been doing this kind of crap since the communion wafer performance art bit. All this energy spent on defining the exact boundaries of a schism that need not be is just a total waste.

I know how some adamant atheists tie atheism to skepticism and science, and while I agree separately on the values of using all three in my life, I don't see that they're necessarily related. That's really the only nitpick I have with what he said. He leaps from discussing atheism to the wonderfulness that is science but doesn't really show any logical connection.
 
This may apply to the recent uproar over there. I don't think they're going to like to see such logic. They found a witch and really want to burn her. Or them, as it were.
 
Humes fork said:
However, what you seem to really want is to turn skepticism into a left-wing political movement. That is what people don't like.
Click to expand...
Yeah right, and everything Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman say equates to the right wing political movement :rolleyes:
 
Foolmewunz said:
I know how some adamant atheists tie atheism to skepticism and science, and while I agree separately on the values of using all three in my life, I don't see that they're necessarily related. That's really the only nitpick I have with what he said. He leaps from discussing atheism to the wonderfulness that is science but doesn't really show any logical connection.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's all that important, as it's possible for reasonable people to disagree: if I agree with someone on the importance and usefulness of science, but that person is religious, I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, here's the connection I see: skepticism is a way of thinking and is about taking information and using it to find out what's really true. It is used in science when trying to understand the natural world. When applying this same methodology to religious questions, the conclusion that we're led to is that there are no gods.

Anyway, that's just a quick sum of my view of how those three things are connected. Others may see it differently and as I say, while I sometimes have a hard time understanding their viewpoint, I'm happy we at least agree about some things. :P
 
From the A+ forum, originally Posted by Lovely:
"I swear I'm tempted to add one day bans for not only the phrase "walking on eggshells" but also for anyone who claims there's censorship. Tiresome. "
Click to expand...

I know a few other people already pointed this one out, but seriously?

How is this not: "Anyone who claims there is censorship will be censored".

Am I misinterpreting?
 
GraculusTheGreenBird said:
I know a few other people already pointed this one out, but seriously?

How is this not: "Anyone who claims there is censorship will be censored".

Am I misinterpreting?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it says. The thing that people are doing wrong when reading this statement is thinking that A+ members are anti-censorship and that this is therefore some kind of contradiction. They're not anti-censorship. They're explicitly pro-censorship. The site is founded on censorship, the one thing they've created and released into the world (the BlockBot) is a tool of censorship, and they mock the idea of "freeze peach". They are very, very pro-censorship.

They're threatening to ban people who point out the censorship not because they're denying the censorship, but because they're so aware of the censorship and the censorship is so prevalent that it becomes tiresome to hear about it. It's banning people for stating the obvious, rather than for accusing them of something they don't believe is true.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I am so disappointed in Watson. Wolverine is an X-Man, not an Avenger.

...and does the article imply that the profits from merchandise sales go straight into her pocket?
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Rebecca Watson is the head of Skepchick, a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading the ideals of critical thinking. Skepchick is NOT her personal piggy bank and all of the organization's financial disclosures prove it.

"Tablegate" did NOT reveal that merch sales go into RW's pocket. Tablegate revealed that merch sales go into the pockets of Rebecca Watson and Surly Amy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom