Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
RebeccaBradley said:
Oh, that's PZ Myers himself. [...] I wonder if Richard Carrier sees himself as within reach of the sceptre.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering that myself. Cannot figure out whether his recent departure from relatively level-headed scholarly prose is a ploy, or a genuine turn to the dark side.

He's a nice chap in person, but then so is PZ, so who knows.
 
Myriad said:
I don't know about other skeptics, but I reject Bayesian inference that's made without any quantitative data whatsoever. Because that is indeed indistinguishable from the affirming the consequent fallacy.
Click to expand...

How silly. It is obvious that you can qualitatively compare the plausibility of the evidence under two competing hypotheses.
 
squealpiggy said:
I'd like to draw your attention to the beginning of this post: Greta Christina has joined a long list of FTB bloggers in saying that "Secular humanism is OK too". So... why the need for a new movement? Atheism and progressive liberalism is already being promoted under a banner that does not include the word "atheist". So why the need for something new?
Click to expand...

It's marketing. They want to make something that's the new hotness. You don't do that by joining a community that's been around since the mid-19th century. Besides, secular humanists are (allegedly) dominated by "old, white, heterosexual, cisgendered, male", etc., and Jen has made it clear that she wants A+ to be more diverse. Also, I think that, as many have pointed out, the word "atheism" has more of a punch. It's a better-recognized term, too.
 
d4m10n said:
I've been wondering that myself. Cannot figure out whether his recent departure from relatively level-headed scholarly prose is a ploy, or a genuine turn to the dark side.

He's a nice chap in person, but then so is PZ, so who knows.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with this whole business. People think that this kind of thing is being nice.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Besides, secular humanists are (allegedly) dominated by "old, white, heterosexual, cisgendered, male", etc., and Jen has made it clear that she wants A+ to be more diverse.
Click to expand...

More diverse, or more centred on them?

This whole thing seems like a bunch of self-important people disappearing up their own bottoms and starting a little club that can make them feel important because the 'big boys club' doesn't give them enough attention.

I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
More diverse, or more centred on them?

This whole thing seems like a bunch of self-important people disappearing up their own bottoms and starting a little club that can make them feel important because the 'big boys club' doesn't give them enough attention.

I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.
Click to expand...

Nailed it!
 
jt512 said:
How silly. It is obvious that you can qualitatively compare the plausibility of the evidence under two competing hypotheses.
Click to expand...


Doing this permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

And it also permits one (specifically, you) to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

That's very interesting. Please explain how these qualitative analyses worked, step by step.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.
Click to expand...

It looks better on the CV, but it's also more sexy. Secular humanism ain't sexy. Unfortunately. Atheism is the new hotness right now, and this is even better. It's Atheism+. It's new, improved atheism!

Think if you're trying to sell people on secular humanism. Well, first you have to explain what "humanism" is, since it's not a commonly-recognized term. Most people recognize "atheism". You especially want to use the term "atheism" if the people you're hoping to convert self-identify as atheists.

And, of course, if you invented the movement, you get to set the agenda.
 
Myriad said:
Doing this permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

And it also permits one (specifically, you) to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

That's very interesting. Please explain how these qualitative analyses worked, step by step.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

They certainly don't work the way you think they do. Troll along now.
 
qayak said:
Concern is fine and dandy but knowing why the person feels unsafe is more important. Simply stating they feel unsafe means little and helps not at all.

1: Hi, 2, how's it going tonight?

2: I don't feel safe.

1: Why, did something happen?

2: No, but I heard about an incident involving 12 and a t-shirt.

1: Really? Let's find out what happened.

2: No, it makes me feel unsafe.

1: Shouldn't we know what actually happened before getting all worked up?

3: If 2 feels unsafe that should be good enough. This place isn't safe for even numbers!

1: But it's a rumour. We don't know what, if anything, happened.

5: Your a racist, disgusting, evenogynist CHUD!

4: Yeah! You want to rape all evens!

1: No, I just want to know what happened.

5: You ******* CHUD! Can't you see it is your privilege that prevents you from seeing? That's why you want to rape all evens and eat their children.

1: WTF?

4: See!

1: 2X WTF?

2: I can't be friends with you anymore, CHUD... oh! I mean 1.

5: Come on, lets leave this CHUD and start our own group. We'll call it Numbers+!

2, 3, 4: Yeah! [Leaving]

6: Hey, 1, what's happening?

1: Did you hear something about 12 and a t-shirt?

6: Yeah, 14 was wearing a t-shirt that said, "I like all numbers." 12 got upset because she felt it was making fun of her. Why?

1: :confused: Any idea what a CHUD is?
Click to expand...
Which is my problem, this person felt unsafe. But instead of bringing it up with the people in charge she blocked people or cut herself off from the group.

And CHUD stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. It's a movie reference... for some reason.
 
jt512 said:
They certainly don't work the way you think they do. Troll along now.
Click to expand...


I invite anyone to explain these rational analyses to me. But I suspect that you're the only person who knows.

What is the rational analysis that permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

What is the rational analysis that permits jt512 to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

The only hints we have is that Bayes' Theorem is involved, and the methods are "qualitative." Any ideas?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.
Click to expand...

Read it.

secular humanism = A+
Richard Carrier is wrong and obnoxious and has been expelled from the club.

So?
 
qayak said:
You are correct. That entire incident was manufactured with half truths, outright lies, and a desire to further an agenda.

SA felt that a t-shirt that said another woman felt safe at TAM was an assault on her because it made her cry. She felt that a TAM workers reassurance that she would be safe with all the security, and CCTV, cameras around was a threat and that she was being targeted by TAM organizers.

Surly Amy is nuts.
Click to expand...

Paranoid and narcissistic, I'd say. A grown woman reduced to tears by a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt? Give me a frigging break!

Bring back the suffragettes. Those were tough broads. These 21st century gender feminists are a bunch of pampered whiny... and dare I say privileged?.. wimps.

(Countdown to when I'm called a misogynistic rape apologist... 3, 2, 1 )
 
dasmiller said:
FWIW, I gave it only a quick read but I don't think I have any substantive differences with Pigliucci's article.
Click to expand...

Much of what he said accords with what's been said here. How the movement develops may well depend on how much influence is exerted by the likes of Carrier. He's been foremost in the attacks on people who weren't first in line for the Kool-Aid.
 
Walter Ego said:
Paranoid and narcissistic, I'd say. A grown woman reduced to tears by a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt? Give me a frigging break!
Click to expand...


Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom