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

[Dinwar]

Chinese, or Indians?

Though there's something to be said about being ruled by a culture that procuded a book outlineing neat ways to have sex. And if you give my wife mango chutny you can get her to agree to anything.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Chinese, or Indians?

Well it's a close call, but I think the consensuses is that the Chinese got a couple hundred million or so more.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Though there's something to be said about being ruled by a culture that procuded a book outlineing neat ways to have sex. And if you give my wife mango chutny you can get her to agree to anything.

Yep, not everything's about having the raw numbers.


ETA:
Which is to say that we also need better organization. We must free ourselves first from the groupthink mindset of servitude in order to embrace the groupthink mind set of absolute adherence to some doctrine. Only then can we unshackle ourselves from the traditional bonds of douchebaggery and express a new freedom of douchebaggery on an unprecedented scale.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Atheism+. Because Bright didn't fail hard enough.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Atheism+. Because Bright didn't fail hard enough.

You posted the same thing on Facebook. Cross-posting, even across different websites and/or planets is forbidden.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

You posted the same thing on Facebook. Cross-posting, even across different websites and/or planets is forbidden.

I'm pretty sure I pluralized "Bright" on Facebook.

Regardless, it's still true. This ****'s ridiculous.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I'm pretty sure I pluralized "Bright" on Facebook.

Regardless, it's still true. This ****'s ridiculous.

Agreed.

I just hope it's still alive in two months so I can mock it at CSICon.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I just hope it's still alive in two months so I can mock it at CSICon.

Try to pack on 100 pounds before then, and make a shirt reading: Atheism+, Disbelief for Fatties.

[monoman]

My thoughts. Trigger warning:

[monoman]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Agreed.

I just hope it's still alive in two months so I can mock it at CSICon.

I've heard that because of the preponderance of attendees born with a dick and still having a dick it's to renamed CISCon.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by The Man

It's an asterisk, douchebag*

* A term of endearment signifying a likeminded approach to everything we don't differ on.

Dammit! That means I have to admit you've shown my argument to be fallacious so I don't get "marginalized and kicked out," huh?

Oh, well... I think I'm used to that by now.

P.S. I find the different pronunciations (?) of programming characters extremely fascinating. For instance, I usually say splat, but I guess star is more common (and, as a GNU/Linux admin, Asterisk usually refers to a PBX distro). The bang (!), hash (#), and pipe (|) characters have some interesting pronunciations as well.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Yah, one of the few upsides of being in a minority is the moral highground over the majority no matter what they do, except become an ex-majority, which will take another fifty years or so, and another fifty for the majority stigma to fade.

Note to self:
"I was an old white man before it was cool."

(now, just waiting for my chance to use it...)
((if I live that long))

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Merton

Dammit! That means I have to admit you've shown my argument to be fallacious so I don't get "marginalized and kicked out," huh?

Oh, well... I think I'm used to that by now.

P.S. I find the different pronunciations (?) of programming characters extremely fascinating. For instance, I usually say splat, but I guess star is more common (and, as a GNU/Linux admin, Asterisk usually refers to a PBX distro). The bang (!), hash (#), and pipe (|) characters have some interesting pronunciations as well.

Yea, I've heard all three pretty much interchangeably and generally say "splat" or "star" myself when referring to putting in a wildcard.

[The Man]

If I might put forward a slice of personal philosophy, I feel that the monochrome's have ruled atheism as stumbling demented child-kings, long enough! And as their empire crumbles my precious freckled muti-pigments will rise as their most fitting successors.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by The Man

If I might put forward a slice of personal philosophy, I feel that the monochrome's have ruled atheism as stumbling demented child-kings, long enough! And as their empire crumbles my precious freckled muti-pigments will rise as their most fitting successors.

Urrggh Chromoatheism, yet another splinter group.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Acleron

Urrggh Chromoatheism, yet another splinter group.

You're just a chromophobe / the privilege is deep with this one.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Acleron

Urrggh Chromoatheism, yet another splinter group.

What's a'matter Acleron? All the splinters getting under your skin?

[lopeyschools]

I really don't understand what is the impetus behind this new organization.

Does the skeptical/atheist movement really have a problem with sexism and racisim? I understand there have been a few idiots who have sent death or rape threats, but how big is the problem?

Are 10% of JREF members racist sexist trolls and I just never noticed? Have these allegations been quanitifed? Did I miss a poll which said, "do you think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?" and a majority said yes?

Nearly all of the posts I have viewed on this forum have been for equality and against irrational discrimination. The atheist movement always struck me as intuitively "progressive" but not dogmatic.

I simply don't get it, could someone explain it to me?

[El_Spectre]

Originally Posted by Merton

P.S. I find the different pronunciations (?) of programming characters extremely fascinating.

For your amusement, http://poetry.about.com/od/poetryplay/l/blwakawaka.htm

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

I really don't understand what is the impetus behind this new organization.

Does the skeptical/atheist movement really have a problem with sexism and racisim? I understand there have been a few idiots who have sent death or rape threats, but how big is the problem?

Are 10% of JREF members racist sexist trolls and I just never noticed? Have these allegations been quanitifed? Did I miss a poll which said, "do you think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?" and a majority said yes?

Nearly all of the posts I have viewed on this forum have been for equality and against irrational discrimination. The atheist movement always struck me as intuitively "progressive" but not dogmatic.

I simply don't get it, could someone explain it to me?

As a movement, atheism + would be like herding brats.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by The Man

What's a'matter Acleron? All the splinters getting under your skin?

I've got enough from scratching my head

[Merton]

Originally Posted by El_Spectre

For your amusement, http://poetry.about.com/od/poetryplay/l/blwakawaka.htm

LOL! That was awesome! Muchos gracias!

[Humes fork]

This thing has reached the media!

Their symbol is very similar to that of Non-Believers Giving Aid, the creation of their arch-villain Dawkins.

Originally Posted by Skeeve

Which rape threats?

Rebecca Watson reportedly recieves rape threats on a regular basis.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by qarnos

I can see some interesting parallels between Atheism/Atheism+ and C/C++.

You apparently are unfamiliar with Baptist++. It has several self-evident statements and functions. The following are typical:

INERRANT Pi = 3;
DO UNTIL The_Second_Coming;
CREATE universe;
DISREGARD evidence;
WHILE sinful INVOKE Baptism;

The language, for the most part, is objection-oriented.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

This thing has reached the media!

Their symbol is very similar to that of Non-Believers Giving Aid, the creation of their arch-villain Dawkins.

Oh, dear! Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.



Non-Believers Giving Aid official T-shirt with white ‘A-plus’ logo over left breast. Read more about the project at http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Oh, dear! Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/003...rge.jpg?100389

Non-Believers Giving Aid official T-shirt with white ‘A-plus’ logo over left breast. Read more about the project at http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net.

It's all the more funny because Dawkins is their villain: He is a white old male, academic, reasonably affluent and his comments provoked the Elevatorgate war.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

I really don't understand what is the impetus behind this new organization.
...
I simply don't get it, could someone explain it to me?

They're secretly trying to prove that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are prophets.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Syntactically incorrect.

The next level of atheism is "atheism++"

Object oriented atheism? Wrong crowd, I suspect.

[El_Spectre]

++Atheism

It's changed before you know it.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by El_Spectre

++Atheism

It's changed before you know it.

A$$: for those who see the profit potential in Atheism.

AK: for those atheists who like to not only pack heat, but also demand the sort of firepower usually reserved for frontline soldiers.

A&W: for atheists who like their root beer in a frosty mug.

More: http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.co...oh-i-know.html

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by Horatius

They're secretly trying to prove that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are prophets.

Suddenly it all makes sense!

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?


No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

Carrier has gotten a lot more flack in that comments thread about the use of "retarded" (and also "lame"), and has modified his position on that (though he's standing his ground on "lame"). So, he's steered away from that particular hypocrisy, at least.

If anyone who commented about it in the comments thread was motivated by my comments here, my thanks and blessings. (None of the commenters there was me. As a non-atheist skeptic, my opinions are irrelevant there; even my comments about it here are a bit out of place. It's not my group or my concern, so as I mentioned in the Thunderf00t thread, I'm being a bit of a dick by discussing it at all.)

I'm not completely without hope that something useful to somebody could come out of the A+ thing. But my interest is common ground, and withdrawing from any common ground (and then saturation-bombing it) appears to be high on their list of priorities at present. We'll see if my being allowed to post here is someday held up by the A+ clique as proof that this forum is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------

One of the more divisive present issues appears to be the abuse of the concept of privilege. And that is quite understandable. Privilege exists and can influence people's positions on things. But making that point a legitimate part of an argument requires, well, an actual argument for what the privilege is and how it's affecting the issue.

My previous accusation of Carrier exhibiting "neurotypical privilege" was intended sarcastically rather than seriously. Claiming that an argument, any argument, can be dismissed due to the arguer's privilege alone is fallacious. Even if we accept as a premise that the arguer is indeed arguing from privilege, it's still poisoning the well, but usually that is not demonstrated, except by affirming the consequent: "People who argue from privilege argue X; you are arguing X; therefore you are arguing from privilege."

And yet, even that fallacious argument is apparently too much trouble for some people to bother actually stating. Instead they say they are bored with repeatedly discussing "the 101" and tell the arguer to go read about privilege. What that invariably actually means is, "I can't be bothered to affirm the consequent for you."

In terms of this forum's MA, it's also, very simply, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

So "privilege," when used fallaciously in that way as it almost always is, brings up the rear in a long parade of ad hominems that endeavor in effect to deny the person's capability to make any argument at all. A rights activist dismissing an opponent's argument as "privileged" without rationale is exactly like a conspiracy theorist calling a skeptic "brainwashed by the media," a Communist calling a counterrevolutionary "Bourgeois indoctrinated," a Christian calling an atheist "demon possessed" or "deceived by Satan," and an old-school sexist calling an argumentative woman "hysterical." (The latter literally meaning, "that's just your uterus talking.")

The potential pitfall, then, of adding the + to Atheism+ is the risk of dropping skepticism and rationalism in order to turn the + up to eleven. That hazard is not avoided merely by listing skepticism and rationalism on a "things we like" bullet point list. It is essential to actually practice them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Carrier has gotten a lot more flack in that comments thread about the use of "retarded" (and also "lame"), and has modified his position on that (though he's standing his ground on "lame"). So, he's steered away from that particular hypocrisy, at least.

If anyone who commented about it in the comments thread was motivated by my comments here, my thanks and blessings. (None of the commenters there was me. As a non-atheist skeptic, my opinions are irrelevant there; even my comments about it here are a bit out of place. It's not my group or my concern, so as I mentioned in the Thunderf00t thread, I'm being a bit of a dick by discussing it at all.)

I'm not completely without hope that something useful to somebody could come out of the A+ thing. But my interest is common ground, and withdrawing from any common ground (and then saturation-bombing it) appears to be high on their list of priorities at present. We'll see if my being allowed to post here is someday held up by the A+ clique as proof that this forum is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------

One of the more divisive present issues appears to be the abuse of the concept of privilege. And that is quite understandable. Privilege exists and can influence people's positions on things. But making that point a legitimate part of an argument requires, well, an actual argument for what the privilege is and how it's affecting the issue.

My previous accusation of Carrier exhibiting "neurotypical privilege" was intended sarcastically rather than seriously. Claiming that an argument, any argument, can be dismissed due to the arguer's privilege alone is fallacious. Even if we accept as a premise that the arguer is indeed arguing from privilege, it's still poisoning the well, but usually that is not demonstrated, except by affirming the consequent: "People who argue from privilege argue X; you are arguing X; therefore you are arguing from privilege."

And yet, even that fallacious argument is apparently too much trouble for some people to bother actually stating. Instead they say they are bored with repeatedly discussing "the 101" and tell the arguer to go read about privilege. What that invariably actually means is, "I can't be bothered to affirm the consequent for you."

In terms of this forum's MA, it's also, very simply, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

So "privilege," when used fallaciously in that way as it almost always is, brings up the rear in a long parade of ad hominems that endeavor in effect to deny the person's capability to make any argument at all. A rights activist dismissing an opponent's argument as "privileged" without rationale is exactly like a conspiracy theorist calling a skeptic "brainwashed by the media," a Communist calling a counterrevolutionary "Bourgeois indoctrinated," a Christian calling an atheist "demon possessed" or "deceived by Satan," and an old-school sexist calling an argumentative woman "hysterical." (The latter literally meaning, "that's just your uterus talking.")

The potential pitfall, then, of adding the + to Atheism+ is the risk of dropping skepticism and rationalism in order to turn the + up to eleven. That hazard is not avoided merely by listing skepticism and rationalism on a "things we like" bullet point list. It is essential to actually practice them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I suspect that this forum might well be uncongenial, because it puts all questions of privilege on one side. If someone is something other than a white male middle class skeptic, they don't need to reveal this unless they want to.

In a number of discussions I've had, I've been asked (in some cases, in a very peremptory way) to give my credentials as to belief, ethnicity, background etc. I've always refused, because I don't believe that such considerations should relate to evaluating arguments. If my arguments are flawed, then it should be sufficient to point out the error, without saying that I only think that way because I'm British, or from Ireland, or live in the USA.

Privilege is a concept which appears to be massively abused. There's no doubt that certain groups have advantages inherent to being part of the group, but that doesn't mean that a person's arguments are invalidated. Nor does it mean that other groups don't have their own forms of privilege.

[Kahalachan]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

Does the skeptical/atheist movement really have a problem with sexism and racisim? I understand there have been a few idiots who have sent death or rape threats, but how big is the problem?

Yes. But no more than the rest of the populace. Possibly slightly less. Every single one of us is prone to bias. The moment we forget this is when we start to put ourselves on a pedestal and risk ignoring our own potential mistakes. Just cause we can debunk UFOs doesn't mean we're good people.

Atheism is morally no better than any religious belief since we are just as prone to irrational group think.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

Yes. But no more than the rest of the populace. Possibly slightly less. Every single one of us is prone to bias. The moment we forget this is when we start to put ourselves on a pedestal and risk ignoring our own potential mistakes. Just cause we can debunk UFOs doesn't mean we're good people.

Atheism is morally no better than any religious belief since we are just as prone to irrational group think.

If this movement had started by saying "Believe what you like, but if you want to participate in this movement, then you will treat people with respect, or you won't be allowed to attend conferences or interact with others" then I think that would have been the basis for something most people could agree with, in theory if not in practice. However, they've decided that abuse, using imagery related to sexuality and physical and mental ability, is absolutely fine, if applied to different people. Courtesy and common ground aren't to be sought.

If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.

[WillyWonka]

Originally Posted by westprog

If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.

Actually, it already happened. Elevatorgate was at an atheist conference in Ireland. Watson just did not say that atheist conference was not safe.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by westprog

Privilege is a concept which appears to be massively abused. There's no doubt that certain groups have advantages inherent to being part of the group, but that doesn't mean that a person's arguments are invalidated. Nor does it mean that other groups don't have their own forms of privilege.

I rarely see things eye to eye with you, but here I fully agree.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by westprog

If this movement takes off, how long before we hear of similar horror stories from an Atheism+ conference? My guess is that it will take as long as it takes to organise the first Atheism+ conference.

Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson.

Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson.

Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.

skepticism != atheism+

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Actually, Skepticon 5 scheduled for November in Springfield, Missouri, will probably be the first A+ conference. Among the scheduled speakers are PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, JT Eberhard, all Freethought bloggers and... Rebecca Watson.

Well to be fair the speakers also include Sean Carroll and Matt Dillahunty.

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Videos of past Skepticons, including Carrier shamelessly shilling his various books, can be found on You Tube.

It's part of the deal, apparently.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Acleron

skepticism != atheism+

That doesn't mean that a movement can't become a different movement.

Part of the interest from an outsider is seeing the ways that the arguments and the power struggles play out. Trying to assign the bad ideas and bad behaviour to the other side, and reserve the good thinking and affability to ones own.