Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Atheism Plus

qwints said:
If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. But if you understand that the goal of the forum is to give certain individuals who feel bullied and oppressed the right to bully and abuse in turn, it all makes perfect sense.
 
qwints said:
If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But then this is counter to skepticism and critical thinking. It is the very basis of religion. Congrats, A+ has essentially become a religion with dogma.
 
qwints said:
If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense
Click to expand...


Been lurking on this thread for awhile and checking out A+ when I'm bored; I think I have a decent sense of what's it about.

I thought the forum was predicated on critical and skeptical thinking, but it's hard to reconcile the highlighted. Isn't 'reality' open to debate? If it isn't, then I gotta agree, it's just an echo chamber and doesn't do a whole lot of good for the skeptic community. They can't say they're critical thinkers and willy-nilly cut off debate at the same time.
 
RandFan said:
Agreed. But then this is counter to skepticism and critical thinking. It is the very basis of religion. Congrats, A+ has essentially become a religion with dogma.
Click to expand...


Took the words out of my mouth, but more succinctly.:)
 
Just a quick reminder of A+ board's FAQ of what is Atheism Plus:

"Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.
Click to expand...

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=140

ETA: Sorry if this has been brought up before, I skimmed some posts on this thread, probably missed it.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
My reply to both of these is similar - the benefit of allowing incivility is that enforcing civil debate prioritizes civility over truth.
Click to expand...

Really? Requiring that arguers stick to the arguments rather than insulting each other is a way to deprioritize truth?

Anger is a valid response to injustice and requiring people to suppress their anger to that injustice distorts discourse.
Click to expand...

I'd say that JREF requires people to control their anger rather than suppress it, and are you seriously suggesting that anger does not distort discourse?

Anger does not seek solutions. Anger seeks a target.

In addition, civility has the potential to favor the status quo.
Click to expand...

Why? And is incivility likely to improve things?

So the goal of allowing angry and harsh language is not to achieve anything with that language but rather to avoid excluding or invalidating viewpoints expressed in that language.
Click to expand...

These are viewpoints that can't be expressed otherewise? Exactly what valid viewpoint was expressed by referring to Wind as a "human urinal?"

The weakest part of my argument is probably the claim that people personally affected by a subject are most likely to express their view with harsh language. I don't have good evidence for that claim, but if you accept that premise then I believe that you have to accept that excluding uncivil arguments tends to exclude the very people closest to the problem.
Click to expand...

I don't accept that they are incapable of expressing their arguments in less inflammatory ways.

In my experience, as people get angrier, their arguments get less convincing. More disturbing and sometimes threatening, yes, but not more convincing. Certainly when I'm angry, I'm much more likely to say or do things that I'll regret. A forum that helps to keep tempers under control would seem to be a good thing.

If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense.
Click to expand...

I thought it was to be "inclusive, safe, welcoming, and diverse" (ceepolk, Sept. 3rd)
 
The fact is, the A+ forums bans anyone who questions in civil terms the established belief system, and welcomes anyone who defends in uncivil terms the established belief system.
 
PitPat said:
Just a quick reminder of A+ board's FAQ of what is Atheism Plus:



http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=140

ETA: Sorry if this has been brought up before, I skimmed some posts on this thread, probably missed it.
Click to expand...

Thank you PitPat. Would be nice if the people over there would read their own guidelines sometimes.

And on a related note, my understanding is that A+ was initially a call for a movement. The forum was their starting point, from which was supposed to flow a third wave of atheism that excluded privileged people who were, in general (but certainly not limited to) old, white, wealthy males.

Seems to me like the movement never actually got off the ground - apart from the forum - and the forum is the only remnant of the concept, save threads like this and many others (the slymepit one is well worth the read), where people mainly (and justifiably) ridicule the forum and its crazed inhabitants.

And what do these people actually do to further the movement they all had so much passion for not so long ago? How do they actively contribute to the cause in real life? Well the short answer is that they don't. At all. What they do do is park themselves in front their keyboard and make noises that at least make them think they are somehow making the world a better place. What I really mean by that is that they constantly whinge about how tough things are for them and others (that they've never met or had anything to do with).

Even the main players in the initial movement are distancing themselves from the forum and have given up completely on the whole A+ thing.
 
Zelenius said:
In light of all this, it makes more sense, but I believe PZ just as easily could have played the role Dawkins played in the EG mess. He would have gotten the publicity he craves without alienating much of the skeptic/atheist community.

Although I only discovered Myers well after Cracker-Gate(but also well before EG), he didn't strike me as a radical feminist before EG. A leftist, yes, but not a radical feminist claiming there is rampant misogyny in the atheist/skeptical community.

And I agree, he does have a lot in common with RW, except that Myers is actually a scientist who should know better, and, unless I am missing something, can do better. This is why I can understand RW's motivations more than Myers, at least Myers could actually do science to build a reputation in the scientific and skeptical/atheist community, while RW can't. This is also why I hold Myers in lower regard than RW. I'm sure this is just more evidence of my "misogyny".
Click to expand...

No, Myers can't. That's why he reached his fame as a blogger and not as a scientist. He's nowhere near an elite, or even relevant scientist. Without his ranting blog, nobody would have heard of him.

Agreed with everything you said about him and Watson by the way. They are both children. PZ's blog is a groupthink paradise.
 
Krikkiter said:
And on a related note, my understanding is that A+ was initially a call for a movement. The forum was their starting point, from which was supposed to flow a third wave of atheism that excluded privileged people who were, in general (but certainly not limited to) old, white, wealthy males.
Click to expand...

But it certainly does not exclude young, white, wealthy females. Who can't eat certain textures. Because of a CONDITION!

You **** ****, *******, *** *** in your ***** with a dead porcupine!
 
squealpiggy said:
But it certainly does not exclude young, white, wealthy females. Who can't eat certain textures. Because of a CONDITION!

You **** ****, *******, *** *** in your ***** with a dead porcupine!
Click to expand...


---TRIGGER ALERT---

*********** squished up *********** bananas!
 
RandFan said:
Agreed. But then this is counter to skepticism and critical thinking. It is the very basis of religion. Congrats, A+ has essentially become a religion with dogma.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Religion and dogma were and are generated by the emotional and cognitive defects of the human brain. Understanding and overcoming these defects is job #1 for the atheist movement.

This is why Atheism Plus, as it's manifested in the forum under discussion, is dead on arrival. They glorify appeal to emotionWP and, when challeneged, turn a blind spot to their cognitive dissonanceWP. Their modus operandi, like religion's, precludes self-correction.
 
5) 
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Click to expand...

It may be tiresome at times but one way to apply scepticism to any belief etc is to have a your worst enemy debate it with you , not your friends, specially when they're clearly not a very effective devil's advocate and there are beliefs that are above questioning.
 
theprestige said:
After some little cogitation, I've reached the following conclusions:

  • That the A+ forum is intended to be an asylum (in the sense of a safe haven) for those emotionally defective who style themselves as "skeptics".
  • Some people, being more emotionally defective than others, have difficulty expressing themselves calmly, coherently, or even civilly.
  • It would be the height of callousness to berate a mental patient for their mental defects; so to is it offensive in the extreme to take a member of the A+ forums to task for uncivil nature of their rants.
  • Thus the A+ forums take on the character of an asylum (in the sense of a facility catering to the insane), full of inmates and their caretakers.
  • Only, their caretakers are some horrible, fascinating montage of Nurse Ratched, the asylum staff from Sucker Punch, and the inmates themselves.
  • As asylums go, it ends up being something like Arkham with the Joker in charge.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

One bonus is that it is providing hours of entertainment for those of us who are actual skeptics.
 
Krikkiter said:
<...>

And what do these people actually do to further the movement they all had so much passion for not so long ago? How do they actively contribute to the cause in real life? <...>
Click to expand...

Well, there was the time they considered writing to Tina Fey to suggest she change the ending of one of her bits so she'd fit better as an ally to them.

<Eddie Izzard>
Sooooo, .... yeah.
</Eddie Izzard>
 
Last edited:
Cinnamon Life said:
No, Myers can't. That's why he reached his fame as a blogger and not as a scientist. He's nowhere near an elite, or even relevant scientist. Without his ranting blog, nobody would have heard of him.

Agreed with everything you said about him and Watson by the way. They are both children. PZ's blog is a groupthink paradise.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm understanding this a lot better now. I guess I was in error when I thought PZ was once a man of science, and substance who has since gone over to the Dark Side. At least Pharyngula was educational some of the time, although it was sort of like "proto-Atheism+".

His radical feminist shtick is getting old very fast. I wouldn't be surprised if his next career move involved streaking at football games for publicity.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom