|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2012 : 16:36:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by AnthroGeek
I just do see the label as explaining anything new or clearing up misconceptions about what a skeptic or atheist is. |
Given that the origins of the A+ label are open and recent, there shouldn't be any misconception that it was created to explain anything new or clear up misconceptions about what a skeptic or atheist is.I also do not believe that treating people as an equal is any more rooted in atheism than theism.
If PZ got bopped on the head tomorrow and just believed in some teleological argument for a god; he wouldn't suddenly say that women should be in the kitchen making sandwiches and gays should burn in hell. |
Quick note: PZ is not adopting the A+ label nor joining the atheismplus.com forums because he doesn't want the baggage he carries around to interfere with the A+ cause/movement/mission/whatever.| If you want to label yourself as A+ go for it. But your disbelief in gods says nothing about your politics or how you treat people. |
That's what the plus is for.
The basic argument is that because there are no gods to deal out justice, those of us who care about it must be the ones to advocate for it.
It's not that "treating people as an equal" is more rooted in atheism than theism, it's that for atheists, advocacy for treating people as equals must come from human beings. Atheists cannot rely on divine mandates for equality, we can only rely on ourselves.| Saying that you are of a political or philosophical persuasion can tell me more about you than you simply saying you don't believe in god(s) |
Again, that's what the plus is for. "I'm an Atheist-plus" isn't simply saying that I don't believe in god(s), it's saying that I have particular political and/or philosophical persuasions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 18:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
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.
|
How's about the negative square root of atheism?
I just don't see what the big deal is. Atheism is atheism. Sure there are a lot of causes that we have in common (at least we have somethings more-or-less in common, otherwise we'd never be able to organize.
I just don't care too much for the re-labelling. Though I can understand it.
As Doc said: It's minor nit-picks* for me.
And *guitar picks for some other people.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 20:23:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
I just don't care too much for the re-labelling. |
It's not a relabeling, it's a new label for a specific sub-group of atheists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 20:32:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
I just don't see what the big deal is. |
I don't either. I don't understand why this concept has gotten the criticism it has.
I understand the push-back from the haters. That's obvious, expected and ultimately impotent. It's the weird semantic and inconsistent criticisms from those who agree that advocating for social justice is a good thing (even if they choose not to do so themselves) that puzzle me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 21:38:40 [Permalink]
|
What's really ironic is the whole A+ thing was supposed to appease those who kept complaining they didn't want their New Atheism tainted with social justice issues. So the thinking was, okay, we'll start this new thing. Separate from that. Atheism Plus can be for those atheists who do want to focus on social justice issues. Now the complaint is that it's needlessly dividing the atheist movement.
I swear, you can't win with some people.
|
"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 10/25/2012 21:41:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 22:06:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Now the complaint is that it's needlessly dividing the atheist movement. |
From the point-of-view of the targets of the haters, the division is very much needed. As someone who isn't a target, but just doesn't want to be associated with those asswipes, I have to agree. A+ is, in that regard, purposefully and unapologetically divisive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 22:52:15 [Permalink]
|
| Jumping in late, I'll say that I'm not a fan of these attempts to rebrand atheism. It makes it seem like it's a club, with rules and requirements. Names like "A+" or "Brights" or whatever aren't something I care about. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 23:48:24 [Permalink]
|
Makes it sort of a . . . "cult?"
A . . . "religion?"
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 04:02:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jumping in late, I'll say that I'm not a fan of these attempts to rebrand atheism. |
What’s in a name? Quite a lot, actually:A rebranding effort is an intentional dissociation of a word from its original meanings. Rebranding “atheism” to “atheism plus” does not shed any stigma associated with the word. In fact, it reaffirms, for those of us who deem it important to challenge those stigmas, that we’re not going away — it takes the term “atheist” and literally adds meaning to it. ...[T]he “atheism plus” label takes the part of the Venn diagram where humanists and “new” atheists and social justice advocates overlap, and defines itself as that overlap. It is additive to the meaning of atheism, defining strong moral principles around which “dictionary atheists” can rally if they so choose. | It makes it seem like it's a club, with rules and requirements. |
It might seem that way, but it's specifically not. There exists no hierarchy, rules or requirements behind Atheism+. The only way to kick someone out of the A+ "club" is the same way people might get kicked out of the skepticism "club": show that their actions clearly contraindicate use of the label.| Names like "A+" or "Brights" or whatever aren't something I care about. |
Well, you cared enough to write this. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 05:21:32 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dave W., for giving the reference showing the reason the A+ crowd feel that their "plus" activities arise naturally from their atheism.
To summarize their position, they seem to say that since theists are causing a ton of problems in the real world in the name of their god[s], it is the responsibility of atheists to attempt to correct those problems.
That's a pretty good argument, but I find it ultimately unconvincing.
1. "You broke it, you bought it." Those who screw things up should be held responsible for fixing them. Even though the last people on earth who would actually do such fixing would be the theists, it is not at all axiomatic that those who opposed such destruction in the first place are responsible for reparations. Atheists are the very last people who should be held responsible. (Taking the initiative anyway, though, is a very good thing -- not a "responsible" action, but one based upon altruism.)
2. I suspect that Atheists acting as plain old atheists (my "A.") can do much by weakening the hold of the theists upon society, thus going to the source of many of our problems.
3. Alliances based upon the individual issues themselves (gay rights, global warming, racism and sexism for examples) seem to me to be the best way to address them. Working in alliances or coalitions with others on these problems is probably most effective.
4. None of my objections (assuming they are accurate) are fatal to Atheism +. It can be a more or less effective movement without my blessing. But I still contend there are no compelling logical reasons to think that mere lack of belief in gods implies or requires dedication to any social, political, or environmental issue. Both the adherents of A+, and their chosen name, assert or imply this connection. This at the very least comes off as exploiting atheism for political reasons. Yet these fields are mainly separate. |
“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 10/26/2012 05:25:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 07:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thanks, Dave W., for giving the reference showing the reason the A+ crowd feel that their "plus" activities arise naturally from their atheism.
To summarize their position, they seem to say that since theists are causing a ton of problems in the real world in the name of their god[s], it is the responsibility of atheists to attempt to correct those problems. |
No. It's that because there are no gods to ensure that proper justice is meted out, we must do it ourselves. Here's a syllogism:P1: No magic sky daddies exist to protect the vulnerable or punish the evil.
P2: The underprivileged need help defending their rights and dignity.
C: We'd better get to work. It's not about religion causing problems, because as we've seen, there are plenty of atheist racists, classists, ableists and sexists (and eliminating religion may just make them feel empowered anyway).| 2. I suspect that Atheists acting as plain old atheists (my "A.") can do much by weakening the hold of the theists upon society, thus going to the source of many of our problems. |
There's an argument going around that religion won't lose its grip on control until social justice is more widespread. If, as recent studies have suggested, income inequality causes more religious adherence, then going after religion will treat the symptom and not the cause of the disease.| 3. Alliances based upon the individual issues themselves (gay rights, global warming, racism and sexism for examples) seem to me to be the best way to address them. Working in alliances or coalitions with others on these problems is probably most effective. |
There's nothing that says that A+ers have to move in lockstep. Individuals are free to address whatever causes they wish, when they want. A+ is an extra alliance, not a replacement alliance.| 4. None of my objections (assuming they are accurate) are fatal to Atheism +. It can be a more or less effective movement without my blessing. But I still contend there are no compelling logical reasons to think that mere lack of belief in gods implies or requires dedication to any social, political, or environmental issue. |
It doesn't. The argument is that if you think those causes are important, and you are an atheist, then it's up to you to get active, because there ain't no gods to fix the problems for you. Atheism doesn't imply caring about social justice, but if you do care, then as an atheist you should become active.| Both the adherents of A+, and their chosen name, assert or imply this connection. |
That's because it's true.| This at the very least comes off as exploiting atheism for political reasons. |
Exploiting? I don't get that at all.| Yet these fields are mainly separate. |
Not when the context is advocacy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 09:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by AnthroGeek
If you want to label yourself as A+ go for it. But your disbelief in gods says nothing about your politics or how you treat people. Saying that you are of a political or philosophical persuasion can tell me more about you than you simply saying you don't believe in god(s)
|
Thus the + |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 14:43:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jumping in late, I'll say that I'm not a fan of these attempts to rebrand atheism. |
What’s in a name? Quite a lot, actually:A rebranding effort is an intentional dissociation of a word from its original meanings. Rebranding “atheism” to “atheism plus” does not shed any stigma associated with the word. In fact, it reaffirms, for those of us who deem it important to challenge those stigmas, that we’re not going away — it takes the term “atheist” and literally adds meaning to it. ...[T]he “atheism plus” label takes the part of the Venn diagram where humanists and “new” atheists and social justice advocates overlap, and defines itself as that overlap. It is additive to the meaning of atheism, defining strong moral principles around which “dictionary atheists” can rally if they so choose. |
Eh. Perhaps we should come up with other fun terms for people who are just humanists and "new" atheists but not social justice advocates. Or just "new" atheists and social justice advocates, but not humanists. I'm not sure how much it helps someone "rally" around anything, but I could be wrong.
| It makes it seem like it's a club, with rules and requirements. |
It might seem that way, but it's specifically not. There exists no hierarchy, rules or requirements behind Atheism+. The only way to kick someone out of the A+ "club" is the same way people might get kicked out of the skepticism "club": show that their actions clearly contraindicate use of the label. |
[/quote]Sort of, except that it does lend itself to the sorts of stupid discussions that show up here, where 9/11 "truthers" argue that they are the "real" skeptics because they are skeptical of the official story. And we can see fun new fights on special "A+" forums (formed for people to rally for their humanist-"new" atheist-social justice causes) where people argue about who is a proper A+-er.
[quote][quote]Names like "A+" or "Brights" or whatever aren't something I care about.[/quote]Well, you cared enough to write this.[/quote]Yeah. I'm not sure why that's a problem. My point was simply that I don't find it all that useful in creating special terms to differentiate overlapping philosophies, beliefs, outlooks, or whatever. I don't think there's any hypocrisy in that. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 15:35:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
My point was simply that I don't find it all that useful in creating special terms to differentiate overlapping philosophies, beliefs, outlooks, or whatever. I don't think there's any hypocrisy in that.
|
I honestly don't understand why so many people think the name is about redefining anything, let alone philosophies and beliefs. It's a brand. It's name and logo that a group of people have decided to apply to themselves. A+ is not an attempt to redefine atheism any more than Campus Crusade for Christ is an attempt to redefine Christianity. It's just a group for a subset of atheists who share specific goals, standards, and codes of conduct. Seriously, why is this so controversial?
|
"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 10/26/2012 15:38:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 15:58:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
My point was simply that I don't find it all that useful in creating special terms to differentiate overlapping philosophies, beliefs, outlooks, or whatever. |
The pro-social-justice people really don't overlap with the misogynists, racists and homophobes that exist among the atheist community, except for their atheism, really. The people who adopt the A+ label are specifically saying, "I'm not one of those assholes."| I don't think there's any hypocrisy in that. |
I think your stated indifference to this matter has led you to not care about understanding the details of and motivation for Atheism+. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheism Period
