The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[Audley Strange]

Immediate banning is good. None of that namby pamby double standards. I hope they have a member watchdog to make sure everyone is getting banned equally at all times. Did the person who wrote the first rule get banned before they continued or did they wait til they had the second rule in place and ban them for not obeying that rule or let them off because they didn't want to apply the rules retroactively and ban the founding members?

Was there, in all those words, a single clue to be had?

[colubridae]

I don't think it is Atheist+ forum official policy (yet) but there are some members over there who believe that expressing contrary or critical opinion of atheism+ constitutes hate and that any site where such opinions are expressed is a "hate site", the members of which should not be allowed to sully the atheism+ forum.

Atheism+ is apparently as weak and feeble as Allah. It can withstand, and hence tolerate, no criticism.

That would be Allah+ Alan+

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't think it is Atheist+ forum official policy (yet) but there are some members over there who believe that expressing contrary or critical opinion of atheism+ constitutes hate and that any site where such opinions are expressed is a "hate site", the members of which should not be allowed to sully the atheism+ forum.

Atheism+ is apparently as weak and feeble as Allah. It can withstand, and hence tolerate, no criticism.

That would be Allah+ Alan+

Alan C++

[Coito ergo sum]

Just took a quick scan of the discussion board at the Atheism Plus site. Nothing much going on there. Lots of threads hand-wringing over proper conduct, what jokes are right and wrong, what rules to impose on their site to limit what people post....

...if the first few days of that forum are any indication, it will be a big nothing.

Typical post: "I'm confused about what to do when I hear people say stuff I don't like... how do I handle it?" LOL

[colubridae]

Just took a quick scan of the discussion board at the Atheism Plus site. Nothing much going on there. Lots of threads hand-wringing over proper conduct, what jokes are right and wrong, what rules to impose on their site to limit what people post....

...if the first few days of that forum are any indication, it will be a big nothing.

Typical post: "I'm confused about what to do when I hear people say stuff I don't like... how do I handle it?" LOL

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=141

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

In other words --- it's implicitly saying "choose your words very carefully....very....carefully...." -- if you choose to adopt a contrary position, you have to approach it in the right way and upon being informed that your position has been refuted, you are to drop it. Failure to do so is trolling, gaslighting and even harassment.

You forgot rape culture apologizing, psychopathy, misogyny, douchebaggery, child molesting, and talking at the theatre.

[Gerald McGrew]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I think I agree with most of them on the core issues you're referring to there.

Well, of course. Everyone agrees with the general statements of principles -- well just about everyone. I agree with justice, equality, equal rights, an end to violence (against women, men, children, dogs, cats, plants...), and I'm against harassment and discrimination, homophobia -- pro gay marriage and equal rights/benefits for gays -- all that sort of thing.

However, the Devil is in the details. They use those general principles to also advance the creepy and whacked out notion that Ms. Hall cannot wear this t-shirt:



I was told in no uncertain terms on Greta Christina's blog that if I think it is "whining" for Surly Amy to complain about that, then I am among those not welcome -- I'm a disgusting jerk who needs to "fuck off" -- if I think Ms. Hall did not do anything "wrong" in wearing that t-shirt.

I think that is the point that needs to be rammed home. I think that implicitly you are expressing this same distinction, and that to me is evident from your puzzlement with agreeing with their "platform" but being unable to "join" them. It's because they are taking those very agreeable terms and applying them to situations to which they are inapplicable.

There's something else as well. Their stance is that if you are not "with" Atheism+, you are necessarily against their values. You can agree with all their principles, but they won't acknowledge that. If, for whatever reason, you don't like them (the Atheism+ folks), or their manner, you must be a bigoted, misogynist asshole. There is no room in their philosophy for someone who doesn't like them but shares their values.

They make it clear that objections to their tone and tactics are objections to their overarching "unimpeachable" values. This is deliberate disingenuousness. Observe Carrier's response to specific impeachment of his RHETORIC, calling his interlocutor a psychopath and accusing him of being. "against compassion, integrity and rationality". This is Rush Limbaugh territory -- strawmanning the shit out of anyone who dares to disagree with their TACTICS and/or question their (obviously questionable motives.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

"Don't be a Dick"

As in "Dick Carrier"...?


...You have just entered the Zander Zone...

[Gallstones]

I think that, based on the site name alone ie "Atheism", that the traffic of new atheists and isolated atheists and questioning religious that richarddawkins.net used to get, will now find atheismplus. I think there is a very good likelihood that an appreciable building of membership will come from those people and they will like what the site says about itself. Whether they like how things are run, who can say. Being in need of like minded social interaction they very well might be willing to toe the atheismplus party line.

Sites with versions of rational or skeptic in their name aren't going to ping as readily with those people.

So, if those sites want to be another place for atheismplus members to go, like especially should those people become disillusioned with atheismplus, the other sites would need to be on the linked friend site list of atheismplus. Assuming atheismplus has such an arrangement.

[Jason]

There are two kinds of people in the world my friend: Those who like Wesley Crusher and those who don't. I don't.

[hadespussercats]

I think that, based on the site name alone ie "Atheism", that the traffic of new atheists and isolated atheists and questioning religious that richarddawkins.net used to get, will now find atheismplus. I think there is a very good likelihood that an appreciable building of membership will come from those people and they will like what the site says about itself. Whether they like how things are run, who can say. Being in need of like minded social interaction they very well might be willing to toe the atheismplus party line.

Sites with versions of rational or skeptic in their name aren't going to ping as readily with those people.

So, if those sites want to be another place for atheismplus members to go, like especially should those people become disillusioned with atheismplus, the other sites would need to be on the linked friend site list of atheismplus. Assuming atheismplus has such an arrangement.

Well, if some sites are on that list, I'm pretty sure Rationalia isn't.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

New round of strawmanning spindoctoring horseshit from Herr Goeb-- I mean, Richard Carrier:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412/

WTF is with all these religious ideas? He actually talks about "shaking the dust off our sandals", and that other numbskull Jason Thiebault is going on about "Shibboleths", for pity's sake.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

There are two kinds of people in the world my friend: Those who like Wesley Crusher and those who don't. I don't.

Three: WTF is. a Wesley Crusher?

PS: you will immediately correct and apologize for your doubleplusungood fallacy, or you will be ostracized, called foul sexist names, and be farted at a second time.

[hadespussercats]

There are two kinds of people in the world my friend: Those who like Wesley Crusher and those who don't. I don't.

Three: WTF is. a Wesley Crusher?

PS: you will immediately correcy and apologize for your doubleplusungood fallacy, or be ostracized, called foul sexist names, and farted at a second time.

Wil Wheaton's character on Star Trek: Next Generation. Generally roundly disliked.

Still, WW himself seems like a good guy, from what I can tell.