Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
This new movement has an energy that makes it hard to ignore.
Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12
This has to make the top 10 list for stupidest stuff. Yet another Atheist group>??? Why? Does someone feel they are special and need their own group beyond the 4 or 5 main ones that are currently out there?? I'm really disliking the direction of the social Atheism is going. These groups need to drop the term Atheist from being associated with their group and use something else because their goals have nothing to do with there being no gods...it's just another clicky group wanting to have some control in what they believe is the right way to act in public. I know at least 1 group I won't be a part of from this day forward.
I love the idea of a group for people who don't believe in something.
This really is a very fatuous and unoriginal remark, you know. It isn't a smart thing to say. You should try to understand why. It isn't hard.
On the one hand I don't particularly like the idea of trying to formally tie atheism to any one given political or ideological stance since it's really not about that. It's "I don't buy this crap you're peddling about this supposed magic super being"... and that's it. And people have enough problems understanding that mind numbingly simple concept as it is, it is astounding how many people don't understand what atheism is. (No, I don't hate God any more than I hate the villains in Comic books or movies. I don't spend my time hating non-existent things)
But I have been peripherally aware of some of the incidents like "Elevatorgate" and the behavior of a bunch of juvenile idiots is giving the rest of us a bad name. It's been a semi-regular topic of conversation over on PZ Myers site Pharyngula (he and his readership are rather sternly anti-juvenile idiot). And there is a certain natural synchronicity between atheism and data driven skeptical treatment of other topics since the basis of atheism is data driven skeptical treatment of the claim it's particularly dealing with. So if you're inclined to it in that area you should be in others.
And that data driven skeptical approach will tend to crush juvenile idiots underfoot when it's applied, so *that's* a good thing...
"....PZ Myers site Pharyngula (he and his readership are rather sternly anti-juvenile idiot)."
PZ and most of his readership are the epitome of juvenile idiocy. Their childish attempts to stamp out all views opposed to their own opinions and to harass anyone who tries to make a reasoned argument would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting. This whole Atheist+ movement stems from that mindset, our way or the highway. No thank you, I think for myself and I do not need others telling me how or what to think.
And that can be done just fine by atheists simply joining the fantastic movements that are already there, rather than creating a new exclusive one which will split these movements and atheism.
Has anyone considered that perhaps a lot of atheists just aren't huge fans of militant feminists?
Surely part of being a skeptic is that you come up with your own views rather than joining an organisation that dictates them to you?
This is not a question of anyone "dictating" views to anyone else. And being a skeptic does not mean "coming up with your own views". Everyone comes up with their own views.
It's how you come up with them, and then how you deal with them once you have them. Did you adopt them through serious rational analysis or did you just latch onto them because you like them? Once you have them do you constantly submit them to scrutiny to test their validity or do you just unthinkingly go along with them because of course you're right? Etc...
Wait a minute, Atheism+ has a set of rules. How is that not dictating behaviour? I think they are simplistic to the point of being meaningless, but still...
I used to be a supporter of Jen, now as a middle aged white man I am excluded from her girls club, and I really don't need a new label, it was hard enough shaking off the attempts to label me before, I'm just me, a decent human being who doesn't need threats of damnation in hell-fire to be good, and I sure as hell don't need a self righteous bunch of new 'New Atheists' to approve me.
Quite a few of the Atheism+ supporters have a problem with ageism. They have a prejudice against the more senior members of the movement, especially if they are light on melanin, or happen to be well-off.
Needless to say, the vast majority of the Atheism+ movement is white, rich, educated, etc. but they have a blind spot when it comes to ageist prejudice. The problem with these people controlling the spotlight is that the spotlight never shines back on themselves.
That'd be why I found out about it through older white university professor PZ Myers, another of its main proponents, then.
"Why , some of my best friends are old... I'm not ageist"
Well, as a middle aged white man I don't feel excluded.
Nice piece, Nelson.
That's because you're probably not well known in the community. They have launched attacks on people simply because they, in their words, are "old".
It is prejudice.
The problem with this movement is that it is divisive. By merit of being restricted to Atheists and also to a certain perception of rights it is a fairly picky group. In doing so, it creates a community which is smaller both than the atheist community and the equal rights community.
The Atheism plus initiative can only hurt both those movements by drawing in followers who will feel apart from the others in those movements. The Atheists of Atheism plus will be hostile to those atheists who do not have their perspective on equal rights, splitting the community of atheism when it needs to stick together. Those of the equal rights movement in Atheism plus will become hostile to those in the equal rights movement who are not atheists, as atheism is the main part of the branding, again dividing that movement.
I agree with both parts of atheism plus, but I disagree with the branding of a new group which will create fissions in groups which are divided enough as it is. There is simply no reason for it. Atheists are perfectly capable of promoting equal rights, and vice versa, without creating an exclusive movement and community for it.
Precisely what I said before being leaped upon by the heavies, I have likened it to the sub-sects of religious groups, it's human nature to want to be part of a tribe , and if you can't make it to the ruling council of the old tribe, start your own!
If you haven't got the faintest hope of success by intelligent argument, say that religion is tribal. Be tribal!
Atheism is mere wishful thinking that actually demonstrates belief in theism.
So not believing actually strengthens believing? What? <--- See! This is the stuff I enjoy fighting against. I am so weary of all the penis issues getting into my atheism.
"Atheism is mere wishful thinking that actually demonstrates belief in theism."
and black is white while we're making sh*t up.
Belief, disbelief and beyond belief