JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags atheism , Atheism Plus

Closed Thread
Old 30th August 2012, 07:01 AM   #361
Mister Agenda
Master Poster
 
Mister Agenda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 2,909
The Brights are still around, so I expect the atheists plus will last for years, although probably with less support.
Mister Agenda is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 07:34 AM   #362
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
The Lateral Truth: Writings of a Mild-Mannered Apostate
http://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/
RebeccaBradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 07:55 AM   #363
ShadowSot
Muse
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 838
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
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.
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 08:04 AM   #364
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
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.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 09:09 AM   #365
d4m10n
Thinker
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oh Kay See
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
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.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 09:18 AM   #366
NearlySane
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 34
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)
NearlySane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:17 AM   #367
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
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.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:21 AM   #368
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
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
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:25 AM   #369
ShadowSot
Muse
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 838
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.
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:26 AM   #370
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
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.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:29 AM   #371
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley View Post
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.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 10:41 AM   #372
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field.
Posts: 10,230
Originally Posted by NearlySane View Post
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.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff


Last edited by Wildy; 30th August 2012 at 10:44 AM.
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:16 AM   #373
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
 
lopeyschools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast - BC
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
lopeyschools is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:22 AM   #374
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,535
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:27 AM   #375
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:34 AM   #376
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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?
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:54 AM   #377
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by ShadowSot View Post
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?
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 12:03 PM   #378
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 12:24 PM   #379
Humes fork
Illuminator
 
Humes fork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by NearlySane View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in later years relieved of them." - Hypatia
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 12:41 PM   #380
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,095
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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
__________________
The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 12:44 PM   #381
d4m10n
Thinker
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oh Kay See
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley View Post
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.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 01:21 PM   #382
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
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.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 01:41 PM   #383
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
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.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 01:43 PM   #384
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 02:07 PM   #385
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
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.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 02:25 PM   #386
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,668
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
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!
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 02:25 PM   #387
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,095
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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
__________________
The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 02:32 PM   #388
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
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.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 02:56 PM   #389
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
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.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:03 PM   #390
ShadowSot
Muse
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 838
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
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.
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:10 PM   #391
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,095
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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
__________________
The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:11 PM   #392
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
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.

Last edited by jt512; 30th August 2012 at 03:14 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:15 PM   #393
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
 
lopeyschools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast - BC
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
lopeyschools is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:26 PM   #394
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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?
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:28 PM   #395
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:41 PM   #396
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Augusta, Ga.
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
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 )
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:44 PM   #397
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
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.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:45 PM   #398
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
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?
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:49 PM   #399
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Augusta, Ga.
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by lopeyschools View Post
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.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 03:52 PM   #400
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
While he was trolling, no less. Definitely a FTB infiltrator.

Speaking of dodging the question...
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.