(Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Mister Agenda]

The Brights are still around, so I expect the atheists plus will last for years, although probably with less support.

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by jt512

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

Jay

There is a problem with that thought experiment. Is it justified to "imagine" that the skeptic/atheist community contains a substantial minority of people who think it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment? Watson and Benson, for example, claim that this is the case on the basis of receiving a constant stream of rape and death threats. On the internet. A troll-infested internet full of jerks who would delight in yanking the chain of people like Watson and Benson. Benson's "death threat" turned out to be nothing of the sort. There is nothing to back up the claim that Watson's unquantified "rape threats" came from members of the skeptic/atheist community, much less from those who would attend functions like TAM. Which, by the way, did already have a sensible code of conduct in place.

[ShadowSot]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Did you mean atheism + ?
Otherwise, can you explain what it is that concerns you?

I do mean atheism +, sorry, last night was a night where I dropped many words while speaking.

As for why I feel concerned, well simply because by implication that means she doesn't feel safe in our group.
I'd be concerned if anyone didn't feel safe in our group.

[squealpiggy]

Greta Christina made a post about divisiveness. It starts off with platitudes about how secular humanism is OK too then complains that people who are not interested in "atheism plus" are also preventing other people from getting involved in it, thus making the claim that it's people who dislike A+ that are the ones being divisive.

She then goes on at length once again about all the rape threats, creepiness and evil Reddit stalking that we've already heard about. That phenomenon known as "dickish people granted anonymity act dickish".

There was a comment by noelplum99 or Jim (comment 17) about what he sees as the issues with the A+ label, principally being the co-opting of the term "Atheism" and the implication that the "wrong" sort of atheist is no sort of atheist at all. The reply in comment 19 including the following:

Quote:

Are you also telling the people who post rape threats, who delight in the most vicious misogynism, and who proudly call themselves atheists, that you don’t want *them* using your label? If not, why not?

Jim (or noelplum99) gave an excellent reply in comment 24:

Quote:

to clear up our misunderstanding. This is what you wrote (as if you would have forgotten already!):
“Are you also telling the people who post rape threats, who delight in the most vicious misogynism, and who proudly call themselves atheists, that you don’t want *them* using your label? If not, why not?”

The people who post rape threats are atheists: I have no problem with that. The most viscious right-wing racist bully boys can be atheists: I have no problem with that. The most extreme left-wing utra-communist suppressors of rights can be atheists: I have no problem with that.
Anyone can be an atheist. there is no link between lack of belief in a deity and any of these political and cultural positions.

He makes a salient point. For years we atheists have had to contend with religious people challenging us with the atheism of Stalin and (inaccurately) Hitler and for years the obvious reply is "Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, it isn't an ideology, it isn't a belief system". Now with Atheism+ the opposite is being argued: Atheism is an ideology and a belief system and if you disagree with our interpretation of what it is then you're the wrong sort of atheist and should be drummed out of the movement.

I'd like to draw your attention to the beginning of this post: Greta Christina has joined a long list of FTB bloggers in saying that "Secular humanism is OK too". So... why the need for a new movement? Atheism and progressive liberalism is already being promoted under a banner that does not include the word "atheist". So why the need for something new? Especially something new that only seems to consist of people on FreeThoughtBlogs and Skepchick.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

So why the need for something new? Especially something new that only seems to consist of people on FreeThoughtBlogs and Skepchick.

If lack of diversity in movement Humanism is a legitimate concern, then surely the lack of diversity in A+ leadership is also a concern. Unless A+ elevates leadership from outside of those two circles (widely known for their record-setting false-positive rates in detecting irreligious misogyny) many who otherwise agree with the A+ concept will refuse to join up and actively discourage others from doing the same. The core of FtB has burned too many bridges, tarnished too many reputations, and flung way too many accusations to be credible as movement leaders at this point.

Right now their major mode of defensive rhetoric is that if you disagree with their leadership or some of the major A+ achievements to date (e.g. leading the TAM 2012 boycott) then you must hate women and minorities. This will not stand up under scrutiny, and it makes them look like terrible skeptics. If one cannot process criticism without resorting to personal attacks, one has no business leading anything with critical thinking in the mission statement.

[NearlySane]

Is it ok to be skeptical about the linking of values to atheism and to point out that value judgements are not rationally based in terms of the is/ought divide?

I definitely feel the cold hand of objective morality and the haunting figure of Ayn Rand behind some of this (and indeed New Atheism)

[westprog]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I'd like to draw your attention to the beginning of this post: Greta Christina has joined a long list of FTB bloggers in saying that "Secular humanism is OK too". So... why the need for a new movement? Atheism and progressive liberalism is already being promoted under a banner that does not include the word "atheist". So why the need for something new? Especially something new that only seems to consist of people on FreeThoughtBlogs and Skepchick.

There's no reason why a movement shouldn't be formed by like minded people who have certain ideas in common. There's also no reason why people who belong to a certain group shouldn't want the rules to ensure that certain unwelcoming behaviours are prohibited. The combination of these two things is what has led to many of the problems.

It appears, from a cursory glance at some of the correspondence, that a remarkable number of people have said some very silly and provocative things. This, coupled with the with-us-or-against-us stance of some of the people involved with A+ has created a massive feud among people who disagree about nothing very much.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Myriad

It helps explain that the "controversy" is based on a logical fallacy.

Skeptics do not accept arguments that contain the affirming the consequent fallacy.

Apparently skeptics reject Bayesian inference because they can't distinguish it from the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Or maybe I just wasn't clear, not that it matters when discussing this topic on this board.

Jay

[ShadowSot]

The issue with humanism seems to be they regard it as being to religious and full of middle aged white men who talk about, but never actually encourage diversity.
And that humanism isn't distinctive enough from christian humanism, unlike atheism +.
They want an explicitly atheist organization to address these concerns, which is fine. My only gripe has to do with PZ's either with us or against us mentality.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's no reason why a movement shouldn't be formed by like minded people who have certain ideas in common. There's also no reason why people who belong to a certain group shouldn't want the rules to ensure that certain unwelcoming behaviours are prohibited. The combination of these two things is what has led to many of the problems.

It appears, from a cursory glance at some of the correspondence, that a remarkable number of people have said some very silly and provocative things. This, coupled with the with-us-or-against-us stance of some of the people involved with A+ has created a massive feud among people who disagree about nothing very much.

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems very much to me as though there is a bit of backpedalling going on following a few of the A+ luminaries making statements about secular humanism (Vis-à-vis old white men). You're right in your conclusion. People are tending not to disagree on much, but there seems to be a rush to exclude on the part of some of the A+ promoters.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

There is a problem with that thought experiment. Is it justified to "imagine" that the skeptic/atheist community contains a substantial minority of people who think it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment? Watson and Benson, for example, claim that this is the case on the basis of receiving a constant stream of rape and death threats. On the internet. A troll-infested internet full of jerks who would delight in yanking the chain of people like Watson and Benson. Benson's "death threat" turned out to be nothing of the sort. There is nothing to back up the claim that Watson's unquantified "rape threats" came from members of the skeptic/atheist community, much less from those who would attend functions like TAM. Which, by the way, did already have a sensible code of conduct in place.

I suppose there is similarly no basis for the report of the concerted attack on Surly Amy that actually occurred at TAM either.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by NearlySane

Is it ok to be skeptical about the linking of values to atheism and to point out that value judgements are not rationally based in terms of the is/ought divide?

Well that would depend on who you ask. Jen McCreight would probably see no problem in being skeptical on that issue. Richard Carrier would say that you're a sexist, racist, homophobic douchebag because you don't accept the glory that is Atheism+.

Quote:

I definitely feel the cold hand of objective morality and the haunting figure of Ayn Rand behind some of this (and indeed New Atheism)

Yeah, I get a similar "off" feeling. But I don't know whether that's because there actually something actually wrong with the idea, or whether it's because FtB have shown themselves to be pretty insular when it comes to dissent.

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by jt512

Probably because you are a reasonable person, and, as a reasonable person, you assume almost everyone else is, especially those who claim to be rational people—you know, like skeptics do.

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

Jay

How would a pro-sexual harasser respond to a proposed sexual harassment policy? Well I suppose that would depend largely on the person. If the individual was an Machiavellian harasser, they would whole heartedly embrace the new policy and widely condemn detractors.

Once everyone had dropped their guard around this individual, they would then begin sexual harassing again. Not overtly, but subtly.

Like a child predator who applies to work at a daycare. They don't show up to the job interview with a pro-sandusky hat on.

Your thought experiment and questions are rather leading. You strongly imply that everyone who disagrees with sexual harassment policies is pro-sexual harassment, which doesn't have to be the case. In any argument, a person can put forward criticisms against an position without advancing another.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by jt512

I suppose there is similarly no basis for the report of the concerted attack on Surly Amy that actually occurred at TAM either.

There is already an EXTENSIVE thread on that and related subjects.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by jt512

I suppose there is similarly no basis for the report of the concerted attack on Surly Amy that actually occurred at TAM either.

You are correct. That entire incident was manufactured with half truths, outright lies, and a desire to further an agenda.

SA felt that a t-shirt that said another woman felt safe at TAM was an assault on her because it made her cry. She felt that a TAM workers reassurance that she would be safe with all the security, and CCTV, cameras around was a threat and that she was being targeted by TAM organizers.

Surly Amy is nuts.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by jt512

I suppose there is similarly no basis for the report of the concerted attack on Surly Amy that actually occurred at TAM either.

Are you raising the Surly Amy issue to support the notion that the controversy was caused by atheists/skeptics who think that it's perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment?

If so, you'll need to clarify the connection.

If not, why did you raise it in the context of Rebecca's response to your 'perfectly okay' post?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

As for why I feel concerned, well simply because by implication that means she doesn't feel safe in our group.
I'd be concerned if anyone didn't feel safe in our group.

Concern is fine and dandy but knowing why the person feels unsafe is more important. Simply stating they feel unsafe means little and helps not at all.

1: Hi, 2, how's it going tonight?

2: I don't feel safe.

1: Why, did something happen?

2: No, but I heard about an incident involving 12 and a t-shirt.

1: Really? Let's find out what happened.

2: No, it makes me feel unsafe.

1: Shouldn't we know what actually happened before getting all worked up?

3: If 2 feels unsafe that should be good enough. This place isn't safe for even numbers!

1: But it's a rumour. We don't know what, if anything, happened.

5: Your a racist, disgusting, evenogynist CHUD!

4: Yeah! You want to rape all evens!

1: No, I just want to know what happened.

5: You ******* CHUD! Can't you see it is your privilege that prevents you from seeing? That's why you want to rape all evens and eat their children.

1: WTF?

4: See!

1: 2X WTF?

2: I can't be friends with you anymore, CHUD... oh! I mean 1.

5: Come on, lets leave this CHUD and start our own group. We'll call it Numbers+!

2, 3, 4: Yeah! [Leaving]

6: Hey, 1, what's happening?

1: Did you hear something about 12 and a t-shirt?

6: Yeah, 14 was wearing a t-shirt that said, "I like all numbers." 12 got upset because she felt it was making fun of her. Why?

1: Any idea what a CHUD is?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by jt512

I suppose there is similarly no basis for the report of the concerted attack on Surly Amy that actually occurred at TAM either.

Trying to track down who did what to whom in these circumstances is almost impossible. I find it bizarre that so many supposed mature adults would behave like that.

However, for someone like P Z Myers, who positively delights in offending and upsetting people over their beliefs, to become a spokesman for politeness and kindness is ironic to say the least. Maybe a crowd who delight in upsetting people who think the wrong way and believe different things are now starting to find out what happens when that attitude turns inward.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by NearlySane

Is it ok to be skeptical about the linking of values to atheism and to point out that value judgements are not rationally based in terms of the is/ought divide?

Of course. Atheism can't provide values anymore than anessieism (a-Nessie-ism) can. It's foolish to pretend it can.

Originally Posted by NearlySane

I definitely feel the cold hand of objective morality and the haunting figure of Ayn Rand behind some of this (and indeed New Atheism)

Ayn Rand did believe in objective morality. However, apart from Sam Harris, which gnu believes in objective morality? I don't think Dawkins does, he merely concedes that if one accepts Harris' premises, then science can inform morality (which nobody has denied). Dennett is really hard to pin down exactly what he believes on morality at the metaethical level. No idea about Hitchens.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by jt512

Apparently skeptics reject Bayesian inference because they can't distinguish it from the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I don't know about other skeptics, but I reject Bayesian inference that's made without any quantitative data whatsoever. Because that is indeed indistinguishable from the affirming the consequent fallacy.

Can you provide the analysis (Bayesian or otherwise) that PZM used to conclude "you want to rape women into submission" from "The Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them."? I would love to learn how to make such leaps; it must be a form of logic so advanced that it seems like magic!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

Oh, that's PZ Myers himself. [...] I wonder if Richard Carrier sees himself as within reach of the sceptre.

I've been wondering that myself. Cannot figure out whether his recent departure from relatively level-headed scholarly prose is a ploy, or a genuine turn to the dark side.

He's a nice chap in person, but then so is PZ, so who knows.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I don't know about other skeptics, but I reject Bayesian inference that's made without any quantitative data whatsoever. Because that is indeed indistinguishable from the affirming the consequent fallacy.

How silly. It is obvious that you can qualitatively compare the plausibility of the evidence under two competing hypotheses.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I'd like to draw your attention to the beginning of this post: Greta Christina has joined a long list of FTB bloggers in saying that "Secular humanism is OK too". So... why the need for a new movement? Atheism and progressive liberalism is already being promoted under a banner that does not include the word "atheist". So why the need for something new?

It's marketing. They want to make something that's the new hotness. You don't do that by joining a community that's been around since the mid-19th century. Besides, secular humanists are (allegedly) dominated by "old, white, heterosexual, cisgendered, male", etc., and Jen has made it clear that she wants A+ to be more diverse. Also, I think that, as many have pointed out, the word "atheism" has more of a punch. It's a better-recognized term, too.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've been wondering that myself. Cannot figure out whether his recent departure from relatively level-headed scholarly prose is a ploy, or a genuine turn to the dark side.

He's a nice chap in person, but then so is PZ, so who knows.

That's the trouble with this whole business. People think that this kind of thing is being nice.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Besides, secular humanists are (allegedly) dominated by "old, white, heterosexual, cisgendered, male", etc., and Jen has made it clear that she wants A+ to be more diverse.

More diverse, or more centred on them?

This whole thing seems like a bunch of self-important people disappearing up their own bottoms and starting a little club that can make them feel important because the 'big boys club' doesn't give them enough attention.

I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

More diverse, or more centred on them?

This whole thing seems like a bunch of self-important people disappearing up their own bottoms and starting a little club that can make them feel important because the 'big boys club' doesn't give them enough attention.

I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.

Nailed it!

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by jt512

How silly. It is obvious that you can qualitatively compare the plausibility of the evidence under two competing hypotheses.

Doing this permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

And it also permits one (specifically, you) to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

That's very interesting. Please explain how these qualitative analyses worked, step by step.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I guess it looks better on the CV to be the founder of a movement than a cog in the wheel of one that already exists. Probably will get you a few more speaking engagements and sell a few more books too.

It looks better on the CV, but it's also more sexy. Secular humanism ain't sexy. Unfortunately. Atheism is the new hotness right now, and this is even better. It's Atheism+. It's new, improved atheism!

Think if you're trying to sell people on secular humanism. Well, first you have to explain what "humanism" is, since it's not a commonly-recognized term. Most people recognize "atheism". You especially want to use the term "atheism" if the people you're hoping to convert self-identify as atheists.

And, of course, if you invented the movement, you get to set the agenda.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Doing this permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

And it also permits one (specifically, you) to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

That's very interesting. Please explain how these qualitative analyses worked, step by step.

Respectfully,
Myriad

They certainly don't work the way you think they do. Troll along now.

[ShadowSot]

Originally Posted by qayak

Concern is fine and dandy but knowing why the person feels unsafe is more important. Simply stating they feel unsafe means little and helps not at all.

1: Hi, 2, how's it going tonight?

2: I don't feel safe.

1: Why, did something happen?

2: No, but I heard about an incident involving 12 and a t-shirt.

1: Really? Let's find out what happened.

2: No, it makes me feel unsafe.

1: Shouldn't we know what actually happened before getting all worked up?

3: If 2 feels unsafe that should be good enough. This place isn't safe for even numbers!

1: But it's a rumour. We don't know what, if anything, happened.

5: Your a racist, disgusting, evenogynist CHUD!

4: Yeah! You want to rape all evens!

1: No, I just want to know what happened.

5: You ******* CHUD! Can't you see it is your privilege that prevents you from seeing? That's why you want to rape all evens and eat their children.

1: WTF?

4: See!

1: 2X WTF?

2: I can't be friends with you anymore, CHUD... oh! I mean 1.

5: Come on, lets leave this CHUD and start our own group. We'll call it Numbers+!

2, 3, 4: Yeah! [Leaving]

6: Hey, 1, what's happening?

1: Did you hear something about 12 and a t-shirt?

6: Yeah, 14 was wearing a t-shirt that said, "I like all numbers." 12 got upset because she felt it was making fun of her. Why?

1: Any idea what a CHUD is?

Which is my problem, this person felt unsafe. But instead of bringing it up with the people in charge she blocked people or cut herself off from the group.

And CHUD stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. It's a movie reference... for some reason.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by jt512

They certainly don't work the way you think they do. Troll along now.

I invite anyone to explain these rational analyses to me. But I suspect that you're the only person who knows.

What is the rational analysis that permits one (specifically, PZM) to confidently conclude that a person who claims the Atheism+ crowd has called people misogynist who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, wants to rape women into submission?

What is the rational analysis that permits jt512 to confidently conclude that the skeptical community has numerous misogynists, because some skeptics opposed specific proposed changes to sexual harassment policies for TAM?

The only hints we have is that Bayes' Theorem is involved, and the methods are "qualitative." Any ideas?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jt512]

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by jt512

They certainly don't work the way you think they do. Troll along now.

You must be from freethoghtblogs. You were asked a question, dodged it and called the questioner a troll.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by jt512

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

Read it.

secular humanism = A+
Richard Carrier is wrong and obnoxious and has been expelled from the club.

So?

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by jt512

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

FWIW, I gave it only a quick read but I don't think I have any substantive differences with Pigliucci's article.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by qayak

You are correct. That entire incident was manufactured with half truths, outright lies, and a desire to further an agenda.

SA felt that a t-shirt that said another woman felt safe at TAM was an assault on her because it made her cry. She felt that a TAM workers reassurance that she would be safe with all the security, and CCTV, cameras around was a threat and that she was being targeted by TAM organizers.

Surly Amy is nuts.

Paranoid and narcissistic, I'd say. A grown woman reduced to tears by a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt? Give me a frigging break!

Bring back the suffragettes. Those were tough broads. These 21st century gender feminists are a bunch of pampered whiny... and dare I say privileged?.. wimps.

(Countdown to when I'm called a misogynistic rape apologist... 3, 2, 1 )

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

FWIW, I gave it only a quick read but I don't think I have any substantive differences with Pigliucci's article.

Much of what he said accords with what's been said here. How the movement develops may well depend on how much influence is exerted by the likes of Carrier. He's been foremost in the attacks on people who weren't first in line for the Kool-Aid.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Paranoid and narcissistic, I'd say. A grown woman reduced to tears by a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt? Give me a frigging break!

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

You must be from freethoghtblogs. You were asked a question, dodged it and called the questioner a troll.

While he was trolling, no less. Definitely a FTB infiltrator.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

While he was trolling, no less. Definitely a FTB infiltrator.

Speaking of dodging the question...