Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Atheism Period
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  01:24:22  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote


I am an atheist. I note and respect the efforts of PZ Myers and others to promote "Atheism Plus" (A+). At the same time that I agree with most if not all of the social causes that A+ is embracing, I do have issues with its designation.

Social issues are vitally important, and everyone should try to promote ideas that help to better society. Racism, sexism, bigotry against LGBT people, and poverty are all matters that deeply concern me. Many of the evils are worsened by religious dogma and practice.

But the definition of atheism is simple: Lack of belief in a god or gods.

If the religions of the world generally promoted equality and justice, I would still oppose their theistic beliefs as contrary to evidence and rational thinking.

Atheism in itself is not political liberalism or conservatism, not a statement of morality, ethics, or humanism. Some atheists are heroic humanists, some are selfish ass-hats. All are right in refusing theistic belief.

I propose that Atheism Period (also known as plain old atheism) is a simple disbelief in deities. It is politically and socially neuter. Atheists, like everyone else, can wear social and political hats when they pursue issues that are not part of atheism. I believe they should do so, according to their varying political, moral and social beliefs. And to be most effective in pursuing these non-atheist goals, they should generally wear secular hats when doing so (while always demanding the right to keep the atheist T-shirts on).

When I give to a charity, it is as a human being (who just happens to be an atheist). When I support a political or social cause, it is as a concerned citizen (who happens to be godless). I do not demand those who join me in supporting the charity or cause be a freethinker, only that they be open to secular cooperation. In fact, I want as many non-atheists as possible to support my causes. These people need not pass any religious purity test, and I will not abide any they might wish to impose upon me. If these causes are indeed important, they need the greatest possible number of people in their support.

I'm an atheist, period. But I'm also personally committed to justice and fairness toward my fellows. If you are godless, your mileage may vary, but you are an atheist, period. Beyond that, what else you are is up to you as a human being.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/23/2012 01:26:49

Doctor X
Voluntary Exile

151 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  01:37:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Doctor X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I like it.

--J.D.

His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  01:58:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Doctor X

I like it.

--J.D.
Thanks, J.D. I don't suffer from the delusion that what I was saying was insightful, deep or novel, but I wanted to state what I thought was obvious.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  03:01:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

But the definition of atheism is simple: Lack of belief in a god or gods.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
Atheism in itself is not political liberalism or conservatism, not a statement of morality, ethics, or humanism. Some atheists are heroic humanists, some are selfish ass-hats.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
I propose that Atheism Period (also known as plain old atheism) is a simple disbelief in deities.
So do most A-plussers.
It is politically and socially neuter.
But how many atheists are?
Atheists, like everyone else, can wear social and political hats when they pursue issues that are not part of atheism. I believe they should do so, according to their varying political, moral and social beliefs. And to be most effective in pursuing these non-atheist goals, they should generally wear secular hats when doing so (while always demanding the right to keep the atheist T-shirts on).
And a bunch have decided to do so under the Atheism+ label. Does that make their efforts less effective than those who reject or ignore that label?
When I give to a charity, it is as a human being (who just happens to be an atheist). When I support a political or social cause, it is as a concerned citizen (who happens to be godless).
Many of those who have embraced the Atheism+ label say that their atheism is the basis of their activism. If you find yours to be independent of your atheism, that's fine.
I do not demand those who join me in supporting the charity or cause be a freethinker...
Who does?
...only that they be open to secular cooperation. In fact, I want as many non-atheists as possible to support my causes. These people need not pass any religious purity test, and I will not abide any they might wish to impose upon me. If these causes are indeed important, they need the greatest possible number of people in their support.
This implies, without stating directly, that you think that Atheism+ demands that atheists reject non-atheistic support for social justice.
I'm an atheist, period. But I'm also personally committed to justice and fairness toward my fellows. If you are godless, your mileage may vary, but you are an atheist, period. Beyond that, what else you are is up to you as a human being.
Then why post a message that implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ is a label that should be rejected by atheists? Why do you "have issues" with other human beings designating themselves to be A+ (especially when they generally don't care if you adopt that label yourself)?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  04:48:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well there always my Atheism++ group, it's like Atheism+ but with blackjack and hookers!

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  06:11:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First, this is not a major issue to me. I have no serious objection to the A+ers, only minor nits to pick about the implication of their term itself, plus possible disadvantages to being too clannish when working with non-atheists. I'm not trying to rant, and not on a campaign.
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by HalfMooner

But the definition of atheism is simple: Lack of belief in a god or gods.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
Well, they seem to be saying some things more, anyway. Some of those things don't seem to logically follow from atheism, so might better be labeled separately.
Atheism in itself is not political liberalism or conservatism, not a statement of morality, ethics, or humanism. Some atheists are heroic humanists, some are selfish ass-hats.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
I don't mean to imply that, but pointing out that putting a "+" after one's atheism doesn't make everything that is attached a logical outcome of that atheism. That's my main point, not an opposition on my part to what they do in addition to being atheists, but the that "A+" in itself implies a connection, which may be tenuous at best. It's kind of a poorly chosen name thing to me, like "Brights," though rather less shudder-inducing.
I propose that Atheism Period (also known as plain old atheism) is a simple disbelief in deities.
So do most A-plussers.
Good!
It is politically and socially neuter.
But how many atheists are?
Some, but probably no A+ folks are. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)
Atheists, like everyone else, can wear social and political hats when they pursue issues that are not part of atheism. I believe they should do so, according to their varying political, moral and social beliefs. And to be most effective in pursuing these non-atheist goals, they should generally wear secular hats when doing so (while always demanding the right to keep the atheist T-shirts on).
And a bunch have decided to do so under the Atheism+ label. Does that make their efforts less effective than those who reject or ignore that label?
Good. But maybe sometimes promoting atheism + might interfere with working well with others to get the (unrelated) good works accomplished.
When I give to a charity, it is as a human being (who just happens to be an atheist). When I support a political or social cause, it is as a concerned citizen (who happens to be godless).
Many of those who have embraced the Atheism+ label say that their atheism is the basis of their activism. If you find yours to be independent of your atheism, that's fine.
If they do, think they delude themselves a little. (The are certainly worse delusions to have than that!) They may indeed have gotten the ethical ideas that motivate their "+" actions from other atheists, but that does not mean that atheism itself leads to any particular social or political cause.
I do not demand those who join me in supporting the charity or cause be a freethinker...
Who does?
Nobody, I hope. I would also expect and hope that everyone would put their collective tasks ahead of promoting their own faction's publicity.
...only that they be open to secular cooperation. In fact, I want as many non-atheists as possible to support my causes. These people need not pass any religious purity test, and I will not abide any they might wish to impose upon me. If these causes are indeed important, they need the greatest possible number of people in their support.
This implies, without stating directly, that you think that Atheism+ demands that atheists reject non-atheistic support for social justice.
It worries me a little that they may tend to put their atheism ahead of cooperation, but the proof will be in the pudding.
Identifying primarily as an atheist might have the effect of alienating those who would be allies in an unrelated field (for instance, disaster relief) where such identification isn't a matter of relevant principle, anyway. The A+ folks should simply be cautious about that.

I'm an atheist, period. But I'm also personally committed to justice and fairness toward my fellows. If you are godless, your mileage may vary, but you are an atheist, period. Beyond that, what else you are is up to you as a human being.
Then why post a message that implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ is a label that should be rejected by atheists? Why do you "have issues" with other human beings designating themselves to be A+ (especially when they generally don't care if you adopt that label yourself)?
I reject taking the label, but don't care much if others do. I wish the A+ folks the best, and hope they will overcome the slight disadvantage that I think their title (and its implications) gives them. I may often find myself cooperating with A+ people. Good luck to the Brights, too.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  06:34:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The Great Question persists!*

A reference to the should be required viewing South Park episodes "Go God Go!" You table eaters can shove it if you ever think I'm going to allow the stupid French-Chinese to claim Hawaii!

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Doctor X
Voluntary Exile

151 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  07:04:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Doctor X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by HalfMooner

But the definition of atheism is simple: Lack of belief in a god or gods.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.


For indeed it does.

Perhaps an "Atheism-" will be in the works. . . .

--J.D.

His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.
Edited by - Doctor X on 10/23/2012 07:04:56
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  09:28:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

First, this is not a major issue to me. I have no serious objection to the A+ers, only minor nits to pick about the implication of their term itself, plus possible disadvantages to being too clannish when working with non-atheists. I'm not trying to rant, and not on a campaign.
You seem to be working from straw-man versions of A+, though.
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by HalfMooner

But the definition of atheism is simple: Lack of belief in a god or gods.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
Well, they seem to be saying some things more, anyway. Some of those things don't seem to logically follow from atheism, so might better be labeled separately.
And it is. "Atheism+" is not a synonym for "atheism," no more than "American Atheists" is a synonym for "atheists." A+ is a compound term with a different meaning from one of the words in it.

Or do you think that "wristwatch" and "wrist" are labels with an insufficient amount of distinction between them?
Atheism in itself is not political liberalism or conservatism, not a statement of morality, ethics, or humanism. Some atheists are heroic humanists, some are selfish ass-hats.
This implies, without stating directly, that Atheism+ says something different.
I don't mean to imply that, but pointing out that putting a "+" after one's atheism doesn't make everything that is attached a logical outcome of that atheism. That's my main point, not an opposition on my part to what they do in addition to being atheists, but the that "A+" in itself implies a connection, which may be tenuous at best.
Have you read the logical argument(s) as to why atheists should be activists for social justice? The connection isn't implied, but is instead an explicitly stated conclusion to a moral argument.
It's kind of a poorly chosen name thing to me, like "Brights," though rather less shudder-inducing.
Compared to the A* people (that's an A followed by a sphincter), the A+ers are better. The problem with "Brights" was that free-thinkers aren't necessarily smarter than religious folks, so the name implied a snootiness which couldn't have been earned. A+, on the other hand, is a specific movement away from sexism, racism, classism, etc. A better world with better people in it is the goal, which is why the name is apt.
And a bunch have decided to do so under the Atheism+ label. Does that make their efforts less effective than those who reject or ignore that label?
Good. But maybe sometimes promoting atheism + might interfere with working well with others to get the (unrelated) good works accomplished.
Again, you are assuming that the good works are unrelated to atheism. To dictionary atheism, yes. But I don't know of anyone who is truly a dictionary atheist. Atheists don't live in a social vacuum.
Many of those who have embraced the Atheism+ label say that their atheism is the basis of their activism. If you find yours to be independent of your atheism, that's fine.
If they do, think they delude themselves a little. (The are certainly worse delusions to have than that!) They may indeed have gotten the ethical ideas that motivate their "+" actions from other atheists, but that does not mean that atheism itself leads to any particular social or political cause.
Then you either haven't examined the arguments, or you reject the arguments but haven't said (in this thread) where you find fault with them.
I do not demand those who join me in supporting the charity or cause be a freethinker...
Who does?
Nobody, I hope. I would also expect and hope that everyone would put their collective tasks ahead of promoting their own faction's publicity.
I don't know of any activist group which doesn't do both, simultaneously. There is always a "look at what we're doing!" aspect to the job, since that's the way to get more members, more support and become more effective.
It worries me a little that they may tend to put their atheism ahead of cooperation, but the proof will be in the pudding.
I have seen no evidence that they put their atheism ahead of cooperation. Do you have a link to a report of some incident in particular that disturbed you?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  12:06:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'd rather not deal with the massive effort of replying with all the formatting, so I'll simplify that.

(Nobody ever really wins an argument with Dave W., anyway. Dave wears down his opposition with both quality and quantity. Sharp logic, great citations, and simply never quitting.)

You seem to be working from straw-man versions of A+, though.

It may well turn out that my conception of A+ is stuffed with hay, but I have not intentionally constructed a false image to attack. I do acknowledge that my information on the subject is limited.

And it is. "Atheism+" is not a synonym for "atheism," no more than "American Atheists" is a synonym for "atheists." A+ is a compound term with a different meaning from one of the words in it.

Or do you think that "wristwatch" and "wrist" are labels with an insufficient amount of distinction between them?


That's all a twisty bit of weirdness. (And you brought up "straw-man" first, right?) I simply said A+ is not the same as atheism, but is atheism PLUS other goodies that do not necessarily logically follow from atheism. Many people may prefer to imbibe their atheism "neat," while grabbing up causes as separate bar snacks. (Some causes, as often is the case in the Byzantine world of politics, eventually reinforces the preceding metaphor like overly salty peanuts, making one thirsty for more atheism, straight up.)

I do not object to people grouping together to select worthy causes to add to their atheism, no more than I object to people selecting great dogs to fill their yards. But these are basically unrelated things. Now, I admit to being one of those people who eats his meals one entree at a time, rarely mixing my mashed potatoes with my sauteed green peas. I like to do one thing at a time, and not mush things all together. So maybe I'm simply too oddly individualistic to be attracted to A+.

Have you read the logical argument(s) as to why atheists should be activists for social justice? The connection isn't implied, but is instead an explicitly stated conclusion to a moral argument.

No, please cite.

Compared to the A* people (that's an A followed by a sphincter), the A+ers are better. The problem with "Brights" was that free-thinkers aren't necessarily smarter than religious folks, so the name implied a snootiness which couldn't have been earned. A+, on the other hand, is a specific movement away from sexism, racism, classism, etc. A better world with better people in it is the goal, which is why the name is apt.

Yes, I accept it's an apt enough term, for them. Not for me. I actually am familiar with many of the statements of the A* people, and find them disgusting. A+ is descriptive in a way, but it seems to assume that the only stuff that can or should be added onto atheism are all the ethics of social justice, and scientific skepticism.

I happen to agree strongly with the importance of the issues that the A+ people have (presently) agreed upon:
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support womenís rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Yet the devil's going to be in the details. What was "social justice" to Diderot was not what ML King thought of as social justice. Some people claim that all criticism of Islam is "racist," and I would never agree to that. I presume that definition is not in the A+ people's minds, right?

(I love the skepticism part, though.)

And that's a kind of "lefty" list, isn't it? I'm kind of lefty, too, so I like it. But atheism itself is not essentially leftist anymore than it's rightist. Nor does a university require ivy-covered halls. Yet people will inevitably, intentionally or not, get the impression that atheists are inherently left-wingers.

But most importantly, I have a considerable aversion (based on hard experience) to marching in step with political/social movements, because so often these movements are usurped by manipulative people whose hidden agendas are far from those espoused openly. So maybe, again, it's just me. At any rate, I prefer to keep my atheism and social causes as separate as I can, simply to keep better track of what I'm up to. You mileage may indeed differ.

Again, you are assuming that the good works are unrelated to atheism. To dictionary atheism, yes. But I don't know of anyone who is truly a dictionary atheist. Atheists don't live in a social vacuum.

Actually, I think I am a "dictionary atheist," and stick to the simple definition. But I have social causes, too. One of those is promoting atheism. But as for the others, I prefer to consider them separately from atheism, because I think they are almost entirely unrelated to atheism.

Then you either haven't examined the arguments, or you reject the arguments but haven't said (in this thread) where you find fault with them.

I'll await that citation I requested above.

I don't know of any activist group which doesn't do both, simultaneously. There is always a "look at what we're doing!" aspect to the job, since that's the way to get more members, more support and become more effective.

Well, that sucks. The cause one works for in a mixed secular setting should eclipse self promotion or group promotion.

I have seen no evidence that they put their atheism ahead of cooperation. Do you have a link to a report of some incident in particular that disturbed you?

No evidence. Just a serious worry.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  14:24:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

(Nobody ever really wins an argument with Dave W., anyway. Dave wears down his opposition with both quality and quantity...
That's not true. Ask H. Humbert.
It may well turn out that my conception of A+ is stuffed with hay, but I have not intentionally constructed a false image to attack. I do acknowledge that my information on the subject is limited.
I'm not saying it was intentional. The A*ers have created a metric shitload of straw A+ers to attack, and some of them have escaped into the wild.
And it is. "Atheism+" is not a synonym for "atheism," no more than "American Atheists" is a synonym for "atheists." A+ is a compound term with a different meaning from one of the words in it.

Or do you think that "wristwatch" and "wrist" are labels with an insufficient amount of distinction between them?


That's all a twisty bit of weirdness. (And you brought up "straw-man" first, right?) I simply said A+ is not the same as atheism, but is atheism PLUS other goodies that do not necessarily logically follow from atheism.
And then you said that perhaps those other things should be pursued under different labels. It read to me like the problem you had was that "atheism plus" isn't sufficiently distinguishable from plain-old "atheism" based on the English words alone for your tastes.
Many people may prefer to imbibe their atheism "neat," while grabbing up causes as separate bar snacks. (Some causes, as often is the case in the Byzantine world of politics, eventually reinforces the preceding metaphor like overly salty peanuts, making one thirsty for more atheism, straight up.)

I do not object to people grouping together to select worthy causes to add to their atheism, no more than I object to people selecting great dogs to fill their yards. But these are basically unrelated things. Now, I admit to being one of those people who eats his meals one entree at a time, rarely mixing my mashed potatoes with my sauteed green peas. I like to do one thing at a time, and not mush things all together. So maybe I'm simply too oddly individualistic to be attracted to A+.
And any A+er who thinks it appropriate to criticize you for wanting to go your own way is an asshole. (At least, that appears to be the potential criticism you're worried about.)

To be crystal clear: if you're an atheist and you advocate in favor of social justice causes, the A+ crowd will consider you a brother-in-arms whether you adopt the A+ label or not. If you're a theist and advocate in favor of social justice causes, A+ers will be happy that you're on the right track, mostly. If you're indifferent to social justice causes, then A+ers will largely be indifferent to you, atheist and theist alike. It's only those who advocate opposition to social justice or A+ itself that incur the wrath of the A+ers, and that ire is multiplied if you're an atheist.
Have you read the logical argument(s) as to why atheists should be activists for social justice? The connection isn't implied, but is instead an explicitly stated conclusion to a moral argument.

No, please cite.
One citation is the Atheismplus.com FAQ:
Why tack ideologies on to atheism?
Theistic religions tend to convince people there exists a supernatural caretaker: one who listens to, considers, and sometimes responds to psychically transmitted pleas for justice. The same religions also tend to posit an eternally persisting supernatural realm accessible after death wherein this god will dish out punishments for sins and rewards for good deeds. But if there is no supernatural caretaker and no post-death justice, conscious beings concerned with the plight of other conscious beings must take the initiative to promote justice, equality, fairness, empathy, compassion, and understanding in the here-and-now.
I'll see if I can find Greta Christina's excellent explanation of the logic when I have more time.
A+ is descriptive in a way, but it seems to assume that the only stuff that can or should be added onto atheism are all the ethics of social justice, and scientific skepticism.
Well, sure. It's a label created by a specific group of people for to rally under for some specific purposes. It is not "Atheists plus we like knitting" for a reason. And I don't know of anyone seriously making claims like, "I'm an atheist plus I collect Pogs, therefore I'm a Atheist+ just like Jen McCreight!" Your concern here, applied consistently, should have you saying, "the name 'American Atheists' seems to assume that all atheists are American."
Yet the devil's going to be in the details. What was "social justice" to Diderot was not what ML King thought of as social justice. Some people claim that all criticism of Islam is "racist," and I would never agree to that. I presume that definition is not in the A+ people's minds, right?
And that's the primary reason that the A+ forums exist: to discuss these and other issues related to the scope and definition of A+.
And that's a kind of "lefty" list, isn't it? I'm kind of lefty, too, so I like it. But atheism itself is not essentially leftist anymore than it's rightist.
Again: "A+" is not a synonym for "atheist." A+ is decidedly lefty, while atheism is not.
Yet people will inevitably, intentionally or not, get the impression that atheists are inherently left-wingers.
People get all sorts of impressions about a lot of things. Some people are convinced that all lefties are atheist communist Muslims. The solution for this is not a different name (because even if the name were "Floobydust," some people would get the impression that atheists are all lefties because Floobydusters are atheists who are pro-social justice, etc.), but just continued explanation of what atheism is and what Atheism+ is. Hell, before A+ came along, atheists routinely needed to explain that straw versions of themselves were wrong, anyway.
But most importantly, I have a considerable aversion (based on hard experience) to marching in step with political/social movements, because so often these movements are usurped by manipulative people whose hidden agendas are far from those espoused openly. So maybe, again, it's just me. At any rate, I prefer to keep my atheism and social causes as separate as I can, simply to keep better track of what I'm up to. You mileage may indeed differ.
And if Atheism+ were an actual movement that demanded marching, this might be a more important concern of my own. However, right now it's just a label. A label under which people are currently discussing, "well, what do we do now?" Probably the most-valid criticism of A+ is that the label was adopted before there was any sort of clear mission, but they're working on remedying that situation as we type.
Actually, I think I am a "dictionary atheist," and stick to the simple definition. But I have social causes, too. One of those is promoting atheism.
But the dictionary definition of atheism doesn't include advocacy of atheism, so you're not a dictionary atheist. You aren't someone who just doesn't believe in god, but instead someone who thinks that other people shouldn't believe in god, either.
Well, that sucks. The cause one works for in a mixed secular setting should eclipse self promotion or group promotion.
Tell that to every charity everywhere that's ever issued a press release. Even Meals on Wheels has a "Press Room" devoted to self-promotion in the "look at what we're doing, and help us do more of it" sense. I don't know of any charity that doesn't do such self-promotion as a simple survival strategy (if nobody knows who you are and what you do, why would they give you money?). "Eclipsing" is a strange word, though. Would it be the case that a charity's self-promotion eclipses its mission if, say, it spends more on press releases than it does on its mission?

But we're drifting far afield, here. I don't see how A+ could be accused of having self-promotion eclipse its mission when its mission isn't even known, because it's just a label for some ideas (right now).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Doctor X
Voluntary Exile

151 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2012 :  14:56:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Doctor X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Need to trademark "Atheist!"

--J.D.

P.S. Athei$t

His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 10/24/2012 :  08:40:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll weigh in. I don't mind Atheist+. I just see no need for me to identify that way. It won't change my outlook, or my politics, or effect my social conscience, and I deal with way too many people who would be confused by an additional identifier coming from me, I think. I spend enough time trying to explain "agnostic/atheist." Even "Skeptic" takes time to explane. I don't want to be bothered with an additional identifier.

After an initial knee jerk reaction to A+ on the negative side, I'm over it. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won't. Who knows? But I'm comfortable with how I identify, and I have nothing against those who identify as A+.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/24/2012 :  09:00:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I always saw the A+ label as something to be used like those little "heart healthy" symbols restaurants put on their menus beside qualifying dishes. It doesn't mean you are a bad person if you order something else. The label is only there to assist people in making an informed choice. I can envision the same thing with websites. If you have a list of atheist and skeptic sites, the A+ symbol will let you know at a glance which ones self-identify as having a focus on social justice issues. Not your thing? No problem. The symbol is only there to you make an informed choice.

I never understood the backlash to what's really a very innocuous idea.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/24/2012 09:11:58
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 10/24/2012 :  09:21:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One thing is for sure between A, A., A+, A++'er, what have you. They all are NOT Theist Or Diests. I think some think to much into it after all the real thinking is over. At least for those who choose to think about it.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 10/24/2012 :  09:28:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

I'd rather not deal with the massive effort of replying with all the formatting, so I'll simplify that.

(Nobody ever really wins an argument with Dave W., anyway. Dave wears down his opposition with both quality and quantity. Sharp logic, great citations, and simply never quitting.)

So much for getting the last word in with Dave, it ain't going to happen very often. The best that can be done is to state your case and give him the last word. Them let the readers make of the positions what they will. Nothing wrong with that.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000