So these Atheism + people?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2013, 09:24 AM
So these Atheism + people?
Are atheism+ actually atheists? I had a missive from a supporter who was pro islam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
What do you mean "pro Islam"?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
Atheism+ is an attempt at creating a philosophy that includes atheism as a foundation. But just as some westerners follow Buddhist philosophy yet do not hold foundational religious beliefs to be true (every white Buddhist I've met), the same can be said of atheism+.

I am guessing most do not believe in gods, but believing in gods does not prevent someone from following the philosophy.

Also, an atheist can be pro-religion if such beliefs are seen as beneficial. Atheists tend to oppose religion, but that is in no way a defining characteristic of atheism.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
Atheism+ appears to be a conflation of atheism, secular humanism, and political correctness on crack. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
22-02-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
I kind of want to support this from the stand point that as it's described here it seems like something extremely socially beneficial.

But at the same time I'm not sure that I want to support it because it seems like something that could divide the community instead of unifying us, although I don't agree with any form of sexism or racism etc. it seems to me that this person at the root of the movement, Jennifer, might just be reacting to some genuinely terrible people and their comments and actions and she seems to have good reason to react I just don't think dividing an already persecuted and distrusted community is the right reaction whether that was her intention or not.

Talent hits the target no one else can hit, while genius hits the target no one knew existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
Discarding all the sexist, homophobic, racist, contrarian objections...

The "It's dividing the community" make no sense. What community? There is no atheist community. There are niches of people who are atheists, and also have similar hobbies/beliefs/views.

There is no single community.

If there had to be, I'd much rather prefer one that tries to tackle humanitarian questions that are influenced/impeded by religion specifically ... something that Atheism + initially tried to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 05:51 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
Anyone better-informed than me, feel free to correct what follows, I'm not 100% on it.

Atheism+ basically says, "we're atheists, but it is not okay for the atheist movement to be SIMPLY atheists. We also need to be humanitarians and not bigoted jerks." The arguments for it are grounded in good public relations, addressing some unsavory forces that prevent women and minorities from being more active in the movement, and the opportunity to move forward on social issues in society at large. The argument against it is either that it's exclusionary (telling people of less-desirable attitudes on, say, race that they can't participate in the larger atheist movement, despite being atheists) and attempting to grab the "atheist" name for a much narrower concept.

For my own opinion, I'm just fine with Atheism+ being active in the larger movement, even wielding considerable influence and power, so long as it can't monopolize the power, the influence, or the movement. Call it the atheism+ caucus within the larger atheism movement. I think they're a good voice to have and listen to, but that they shouldn't be the only voice.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2013 11:03 PM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: So these Atheism + people?
(22-02-2013 05:21 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Discarding all the sexist, homophobic, racist, contrarian objections...

The "It's dividing the community" make no sense. What community? There is no atheist community. There are niches of people who are atheists, and also have similar hobbies/beliefs/views.

There is no single community.

If there had to be, I'd much rather prefer one that tries to tackle humanitarian questions that are influenced/impeded by religion specifically ... something that Atheism + initially tried to do.

The people at conferences community.

Don't care for the hoopla about them. They want to make their focus secular humanist but their issue is existing humanist groups are still highly religious/spiritual in organiZation

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 10:35 PM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
"I am guessing most do not believe in gods, but believing in gods does not prevent someone from following the philosophy."

So they subjugate women, brutalize their children and murder people who don't follow the same philosophy as them just for fun????
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: So these Atheism + people?
There have been some other discussions on the topic: here . I'm still confused how a movement based on "elevator-gate" was even remotely accepted by anyone...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: