|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2012 : 22:03:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[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?
|
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. Regardless of what their mission statement is, people who define themselves as X will naturally take umbridge.
|
 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 23:55:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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+. |
Well, it's probably more that I'm not involved in any sort of atheist activism and so the atheists I encounter are more or less just the people I hang out with. I honestly don't know any atheist "misogynists, racists and homophobes" but then again, I tend not to hang out with misogynists, racists and homophobes either.
But by all means, if some group of nice, progressive, atheists wants to re-brand themselves, they should go for it. I think that Atheism Plus/A+ is a horrible rebranding name, though. At least Campus Crusade for Christ has some good alliteration and easily explains what it's about. Atheism Plus, on the other hand, sounds like a diet supplement. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 00:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I honestly don't know any atheist "misogynists, racists and homophobes" but then again, I tend not to hang out with misogynists, racists and homophobes either.
|
Don't know any personally or don't know of any? |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 01:11:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. Do you really want to argue against that?| Regardless of what their mission statement is, people who define themselves as X will naturally take umbridge. |
Those who define themselves as just atheists shouldn't be bothered, which is what's puzzling. But here we have Cune (for example) passing a negative judgment on the label while obviously not giving enough of a shit to learn the motivation behind it. Why? Why is he expending so much effort (more than "none at all") to poo-poo something he claims to be indifferent about and which he's made clear doesn't affect him in the least little bit? It makes no sense.
Cune, you know I think you're awesome, but this is just bizarre. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 02:03:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. Do you really want to argue against that?
|
Not really sure what you mean here, seems like you're saying atheists are all of those things and Atheists+ are not. But anyway, it doesn't really have bearing on what I said.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
[quote]Regardless of what their mission statement is, people who define themselves as X will naturally take umbridge. |
Those who define themselves as just atheists shouldn't be bothered, which is what's puzzling.
|
Well they will be bothered. If, like you just said (above), Atheism+ is better, then that would make them inferior and no one likes to be called inferior even if it's true. Even if they don't consider A+ to be better the name is still going to ruffle their feathers. They don't like being A- by default.
It's not puzzling to me, it's a natural human backlash. I don't know why you expect everyone to behave so rationally. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 10/27/2012 02:10:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 05:33:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Not really sure what you mean here, seems like you're saying atheists are all of those things and Atheists+ are not. |
I was saying that some atheists are better than others.| But anyway, it doesn't really have bearing on what I said. |
Really? Saying that the difference between the good guys and the bad guys isn't an implication but is instead explicit isn't relevant to your assertion that it's an implication?| Well they will be bothered. If, like you just said (above), Atheism+ is better, then that would make them inferior and no one likes to be called inferior even if it's true. Even if they don't consider A+ to be better the name is still going to ruffle their feathers. They don't like being A- by default. |
But the default is plain-old A, which isn't inferior.| It's not puzzling to me, it's a natural human backlash. I don't know why you expect everyone to behave so rationally. |
Because 99% of them read sites like SFN, which implies that they value rationality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 07:52:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. |
Which rather implies that "Atheists" are all, to use your vernacular: "sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes."
Hence, the cult.
Hence, the objections raised by others above.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 08:54:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. |
Which rather implies that "Atheists" are all, to use your vernacular: "sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes." |
That implication only follows if atheists are assumed to not be activists for social justice. Why would anyone make such an assumption?Not, not hence. The conclusion does not follow from the available evidence.
Atheism+ is itself a backlash against a concerted campaign of hate from a small subset of atheists. Dismissing this context to argue about what the name might sound like to the uninformed suggests that wallowing in ignorance should be expected and tolerated from people who hang out on skeptical websites. If skeptics can't be bothered to click a link or if quoted statements are tl;dr for them, why should they be seen as doing anything but abdicating their skepticism? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 09:47:18 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W.That implication only follows if atheists are assumed to not be activists. . . |
No, that logical conclusion comes merely from your response to OnFireforOiledMen [Stop that!--Ed.]. If you wrote hastily and did not intend such an implication, that is understandable.
Further:
| . . . if atheists are assumed to not be activists. . . for social justice. Why would anyone make such an assumption? |
Why would anyone make the assumption they are?
| Not, not hence. The conclusion does not follow from the available evidence. |
Of course it does. You merely dislike the conclusion and reality. Methinks you need to take a number in that respect. Hear tell they will be serving hot cocoa in about an hour.
| Atheism+ is itself a backlash against a concerted campaign of hate from a small subset of atheists. |
Thank you for providing further evidence for the conclusion. Your statement basically reads, word-for-word, like many cult manifestos I have studied. You conjure up a "they" to be "against," you--as you did in the statement above--elevate "your group" above the "others."
| Dismissing this context to argue about what the name might sound like to the uninformed suggests that wallowing in ignorance should be expected and tolerated from people who hang out on skeptical websites. |
Then, perhaps, you should not continue to "wallow?
Get outside a bit?
For that is what you have basically done. To use your own words, strawmen, and other fallacies.
In the rain.
This is a most fascinating development: the growth of cults. It is the way of groups that dedicate themselves to a "thing"--create leaders, create factions, denigrate--as you have--any who question. Create elites.
So fascinating scholars are taking notice.
Nevertheless, the tragedy remains that some, like you apparently, feel this is not the case and groups such as this are not merely living up to the negative stereotypes those who actually oppose your views create for you.
Atheism is merely a lack of a belief in gods--to eschew the 37 [37?--Ed.] pages of debate on "Soft" versus "Strong" versus "Mild" versus "Beige Atheism." That someone is an Atheist does not make him any more of a humanitarian--or less.
One may very well appeal to the fact that if you are in a traditionally oppressed minority you should have some greater empathy and responsibility towards other oppressed/marginalized/"dispis'd and reject'd" minorities--like those a bit further down the line who will get no cocoa! This is understandable. One may further appeal to the fact that those who actively denigrate Atheists accuse Atheists of lacking moral fiber and all of that. To which, I would remind, the "fiber" proves just as questionable in those who believe in fairy tales and attack those who do not.
Yet there are believers in fairy tales who are humanitarians.
Really separate issues as I have [Pontificated.--Ed.] before. Unfortunately, what remains is the drive to "with us or against us," which, sadly, you embodied in your reply.
Yet, as I confess, most fascinating.
--J.D.
[Edited because it is neither "their" nor "they're" there.--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 10/27/2012 09:49:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 13:01:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
No, that logical conclusion comes merely from your response to OnFireforOiledMen [Stop that!--Ed.]. |
If you're going to strip things of their context and examine them individually, you're going to come to a lot of wrong conclusions.| If you wrote hastily and did not intend such an implication, that is understandable. |
And if you're going to insist on being ignorant of the context of the discussion, it is understandable why you're getting so much wrong.Further:| . . . if atheists are assumed to not be activists. . . for social justice. Why would anyone make such an assumption? |
Why would anyone make the assumption they are? |
No one needs to. The rational assumption should be that, like the general population, there are some atheists who are interested in social justice, and some who are adamantly opposed to it. Assuming that all atheists share one view (pro, con or indifferent) is an incorrect premise.| Not, not hence. The conclusion does not follow from the available evidence. |
Of course it does. |
Does not. How long do you wish to continue that game?| You merely dislike the conclusion and reality. |
Reality? Seriously? You think a single sentence of mine represents the reality of the Atheism+ label?!| Methinks you need to take a number in that respect. |
Methinks you're smug, condescending and wrong.| Atheism+ is itself a backlash against a concerted campaign of hate from a small subset of atheists. |
Thank you for providing further evidence for the conclusion. |
And I read that sentence as, "I didn't read the thread before commenting."| Your statement basically reads, word-for-word, like many cult manifestos I have studied. You conjure up a "they" to be "against," you--as you did in the statement above--elevate "your group" above the "others." |
So you think that the haters don't exist? That women and people of color within the atheist community aren't getting rape and death threats on a regular basis just because they dared to speak up about the male and/or white privilege that pervades the same community? Perhaps it is you who doesn't like reality, and have so firmly closed down your sight to think that "the enemy" is a fabrication by a "cult."| Then, perhaps, you should not continue to "wallow? |
Psychological projection of your own failures onto others.Good advice for you to follow.| For that is what you have basically done. To use your own words, strawmen, and other fallacies. |
More projection.| This is a most fascinating development: the growth of cults. It is the way of groups that dedicate themselves to a "thing"--create leaders, create factions, denigrate--as you have--any who question. |
And now you're invoking the JAQing-off defense. But when have I denigrated anyone who simply questioned?! Please provide quotes in their proper context. And who is leading the Atheism+ crowd? Again: provide evidence.
Factions? Absolutely. Atheism+ is a faction created in response to the faction(s) of atheists that actively and openly hates women, trans* people, gays, POCs, the poor and/or disabled.Do you think that nobody is better than anyone else in any respect?| So fascinating scholars are taking notice. |
No scholars in evidence here.| Nevertheless, the tragedy remains that some, like you apparently, feel this is not the case and groups such as this are not merely living up to the negative stereotypes those who actually oppose your views create for you. |
Do you oppose social justice activism?| Atheism is merely a lack of a belief in gods... |
Said for the zillionth time. Nobody disagrees.| That someone is an Atheist does not make him any more of a humanitarian--or less. |
Again: you are repeating things that nobody disagrees with. Go burn your strawmen elsewhere.One may very well appeal to the fact that if you are in a traditionally oppressed minority you should have some greater empathy and responsibility towards other oppressed/marginalized/"dispis'd and reject'd" minorities--like those a bit further down the line who will get no cocoa! This is understandable. One may further appeal to the fact that those who actively denigrate Atheists accuse Atheists of lacking moral fiber and all of that. To which, I would remind, the "fiber" proves just as questionable in those who believe in fairy tales and attack those who do not.
Yet there are believers in fairy tales who are humanitarians. |
This isn't relevant to the issues in this thread in any way I can tell.| Really separate issues as I have [Pontificated.--Ed.] before. |
He says, ignoring the logical argument presented earlier in the thread.| Unfortunately, what remains is the drive to "with us or against us," which, sadly, you embodied in your reply. |
And given what I've been saying in this thread, this indicates to me that you promote misogyny and racism. As I specifically stated earlier, the only people that A+ers are against are those who are opposed to advocacy for social justice. If you just don't care about it, or would rather spend your energy on other matters, A+ers aren't going to care one little bit. It has never been "with us or against us." So, because you think it is, I can only conclude that you identify with the people the A+ers are actually against: the assholes.| Yet, as I confess, most fascinating. |
If you'd try to alleviate your ignorance about Atheism+ with even just 1% of the study you've obviously put into the Bible, you might be fascinated to see this alleged cult disappear from your vision. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 14:08:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And if you're going to insist on being ignorant of the context of the discussion, . . . |
Save it was not. Quoted your words to you. If you prove unhappy with what they reveal about you I can only encourage you spend a bit more time in their responsible creation. Nevertheless, if anyone "strips out of context"--the Last Excuse of the Christian Fundamentalist--how unlike rain on an election day!--it is you.
| . . .it is understandable why you're getting so much wrong. |
Your progressively petulant response demonstrates otherwise. You may wish to cease digging yourself deeper.
| Assuming that all atheists share one view (pro, con or indifferent) is an incorrect premise. |
Which would invalidate your response as indicated above. My compliments: I am most gratified when others make my points for me.
Saves a great deal of time and bother.
Which means, then, you have no further argument with Anointed Inflammation given you have just contradicted yourself on that point. Glad that is settled.
Which sort of takes care of the rest of your "appeals to injur'd merit."
I recommend you try the outside. They have cake. Though I am reminded of the observation of Dorothy Parker regarding gardening in that respect. Yet, I remain an optimist. You have already reversed your embarrassing strawman generalization. You may yet enjoy further improvements.
Or not.
But then, that error will remain yours.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 14:15:28 [Permalink]
|
Though I would hope it did not pass unnoticed the individual's appeal to "If ONLY you KNEW you would AGREE with _____" fallacy so often used by . . .
. . .
. . . wait for it!
. . .  Christian Fundamentalists! The "if only you READ the Bible correctly you would see _____" followed by threats to pray for you.
Yet another example of cult-thinking. I am, again, gratified when others make my points for me--even embody by way of example the very tendencies noted.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 14:43:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Quoted your words to you. |
Independent of the rest of the context, yes you did.| If you prove unhappy with what they reveal about you I can only encourage you spend a bit more time in their responsible creation. Nevertheless, if anyone "strips out of context"--the Last Excuse of the Christian Fundamentalist--how unlike rain on an election day!--it is you. |
I'm not the one quote-mining, here.| . . .it is understandable why you're getting so much wrong. |
Your progressively petulant response demonstrates otherwise. |
Really? I'm being petulant, therefore you are correct? Where's the logic there? Utterly absent.| You may wish to cease digging yourself deeper. |
Well, you've already stopped talking substance, and have decided to make this all about me. Shall I assume that it's because you are unable to put forth a valid argument against the new label, and instead just need to mock it because it hurt your fee-fees?| Assuming that all atheists share one view (pro, con or indifferent) is an incorrect premise. |
Which would invalidate your response as indicated above. My compliments: I am most gratified when others make my points for me. |
Actually, you've just agreed that your premise was incorrect. Are you really so blinkered that you can't tell that you've made an own goal?| Which means, then, you have no further argument with Anointed Inflammation given you have just contradicted yourself on that point. Glad that is settled. |
I never contradicted myself. It was your argument that required the assumption that all atheists are not social justice activists. I pointed out that your assumption was wrong. And I have never contradicted that point in any way.| Which sort of takes care of the rest of your "appeals to injur'd merit." |
It would if it weren't just you being wrong, again.| You have already reversed your embarrassing strawman generalization. |
My embarrassing strawman generalization that you cannot assume that all atheists share a single viewpoint. You keep telling yourself that.| But then, that error will remain yours. |
No, it's been yours from the get-go.| Though I would hope it did not pass unnoticed the individual's appeal to "If ONLY you KNEW you would AGREE with _____" fallacy so often used by . . . |
Now you're just lying.
I have provided links and quotes with which you could educate yourself on this matter. You clearly won't read my words impartially. Thus you have immunized yourself from argument, but now you're claiming that the fact that you refuse to examine the available evidence somehow makes me like a Christian Fundamentalist?!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!| Yet another example of cult-thinking. I am, again, gratified when others make my points for me--even embody by way of example the very tendencies noted. |
Seriously, look in the mirror. You've invented a cult and provided it with fictitious motivations and leaders for you to smugly oppose with childish insults and massive psychological projection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 14:56:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Independent of the rest of the context, yes you did. |
Sadly, they were not. Your backtracking now proves most unseemly:
| I'm not the one quote-mining, here. |
Since I am not an unkind man--"measur'd in manner and speech, Madam!"--I will not highlight the individual's claim that to disagree with him is to "promote misogyny and racism,"  Reminds me of the claim from a Loon who believed in Alien-Visitation nonsense that to deny his "evidence"--which required one to lack the ability to determine the difference between "north" and "south!"--constituted "Holocaust Denial!"
Yet, again, another cult activity--smear those who do not agree 100%. "If our gospel is veiled it is veiled only to those who are perishing!"
| Really? I'm being petulant, . . . |
"All other titles thou hast given away!"
Now breath in . . . breath out . . . breath in 
| . . . therefore you are correct? |
Which demonstrates the singular inability to read a response which I would normally not highlight if it did not embody the very activity which you deny performing.
| Where's the logic there? Utterly absent. |
From your responses, indeed. What you created was another glorified argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam fallacy. On the contrary, allow me to reiterate in simple terms, you are now embodying the very cultish behavior in your responses that you claim does not exist in Atheism+
It is not terribly complicated.
The remainder of your screed embodies the same and merely reaffirms that conclusion.
--J.D.
[Edited for the codes . . . the codes. . . .--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 10/27/2012 15:03:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 15:55:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Sadly, they were not. |
You're just pathetically contrarian, now.| Your backtracking now proves most unseemly: |
I haven't backtracked one iota.| Since I am not an unkind man--"measur'd in manner and speech, Madam!"--I will not highlight the individual's claim that to disagree with him is to "promote misogyny and racism," |
Well, I never said any such thing, and I haven't seen anyone else in this thread say any such thing, so if you were to highlight it, it would have to be from some other thread.| Reminds me of the claim from a Loon who believed in Alien-Visitation nonsense that to deny his "evidence"--which required one to lack the ability to determine the difference between "north" and "south!"--constituted "Holocaust Denial!" |
Wow.| Yet, again, another cult activity--smear those who do not agree 100%. |
Yes, that's exactly what Atheism+ people mean when they point out that if you're not into social justice activism, that's just fine. Saying you're okay doing whatever you want, so long as you don't oppose their efforts, is a smear. You're just redefining words now, aren't you?
Of course, this is another instance where you are projecting your own faults onto others. I don't agree with you, but instead of discussing the area of disagreement, you've smeared me by comparing me to loons and fundies.| "If our gospel is veiled it is veiled only to those who are perishing!" |
Provide evidence that Atheism+ has a "gospel" which is in any way "veiled," and this quote might have relevance.| Really? I'm being petulant, . . . |
"All other titles thou hast given away!"
Now breath in . . . breath out . . . breath in
| . . . therefore you are correct? |
Which demonstrates the singular inability to read a response... |
How so? Your "otherwise" was a clear reference to my saying that you were wrong, so the plain English parsing of your sentence would indicate that my being petulant demonstrates you to be correct. But please, enlighten me how your words could mean otherwise....which I would normally not highlight if it did not embody the very activity which you deny performing.| Where's the logic there? Utterly absent. |
From your responses, indeed. What you created was another glorified argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam fallacy. On the contrary, allow me to reiterate in simple terms, you are now embodying the very cultish behavior in your responses that you claim does not exist in Atheism+ |
Really? Pointing out where and how your arguments lack any basis in reality, demonstrating you to be lying, highlighting your childish insults: that's all "cultish behavior?" Well, holy shit, that means most of the skeptical community is cultish in their dealings with con-men and fools!| It is not terribly complicated. |
No, apparently you've simplified it so much that you've placed yourself in a cult.| The remainder of your screed embodies the same and merely reaffirms that conclusion. |
It's a truly bizarre conclusion, based on falsehoods and character attacks that have nothing to do with what I've actually said. But thanks for cutting your ridiculous hypocritical nonsense short. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheism Period
