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

[Audley Strange]

See this is exactly the problem with ideological politics getting involved with "atheism" it not only excludes most atheists but it excludes everyone else that's not.

I mean should I be wracked with guilt for helping the corporate evil that is Coca Cola and the Corporate evil that is Barclays bank along with Disciples of the Patriarchal Rape machine that are Islamic elders build a non-denominational school for girls of various tribes and religions orphaned by war?

What about my alliance with the catholic church and the evil tory government in trying to help children with social behavioural or learning difficulties at catholic schools, should have shunned them yeah?

Ape Lust is not part of the solution, its not even part of the problem, it's the Alex Jones of atheism.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Audley Strange]

I'm not an overwhelming Thunderf00t fan per se, but he has waded into the debate with this blog entry:

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... -agreement

Interesting blog post, and of course the comments are a joy to behold (for those so inclined).

Enjoy. Or not.

I'll give you a laugh.

I picked a video from thunderfoot, a video from Girlwriteswhat and a video from Rebecca Watson and showed them to my mother, who is a very very left wing, old school feminist who loves a bit of science and like me is a cynical doofus.

She said that Thunderfoot's video blew her mind, Girlwriteswhat was a bit right wing had some questionable things she'd like to consider further but made some valid criticisms and that Rebecca Watson was impressive in that she gets paid to whine about herself.

She doesn't give a single fuck or know anything about this.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Azathoth]

I'm not an overwhelming Thunderf00t fan per se, but he has waded into the debate with this blog entry:

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... -agreement

Interesting blog post, and of course the comments are a joy to behold (for those so inclined).

Enjoy. Or not.

I'll give you a laugh.

I picked a video from thunderfoot, a video from Girlwriteswhat and a video from Rebecca Watson and showed them to my mother, who is a very very left wing, old school feminist who loves a bit of science and like me is a cynical doofus.

She said that Thunderfoot's video blew her mind, Girlwriteswhat was a bit right wing had some questionable things she'd like to consider further but made some valid criticisms and that Rebecca Watson was impressive in that she gets paid to whine about herself.

She doesn't give a single fuck or know anything about this.

I would rather read TF. His voice is like sonic valium. 2 or 3 minutes of listening to it and I'm falling asleep

[Audley Strange]

Shall I inform my mother of your concerns Azathoth?

[hadespussercats]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

The other reason to at least pay attention is that, right now when someone from "the media" wants a token atheist for a discussion, they call upon Dawkins, or Harris, (and wish they could call Hitchens) or the guys from AA or FFRF. At some point they're going to want fresh faces, and if you google "atheism" and find page after page of "Atheism Plus" and "Skepchicks" you're going to assume that you've found a new 'voice of atheism'.

They are a new voice of atheism. They're just not the new voice of atheism.

I don't necessarily care for Dawkins or Hitchens speaking for me, though they are enchantingly articulate (or were.)
I definitely don't care for that yahoo in charge of AA speaking for me. (See-- They're using a girder from the Trade Center like a Cross! Oh noes! America is ruined!)

This just seems silly. Find what you think is important, and put it out there. Maybe you'll get to be a voice of atheism, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

The are a new voice of atheism -- a very shrill and annoying, harpy-like voice...

[Seth]

The are a new voice of atheism -- a very shrill and annoying, harpy-like voice...

Actually, there's nothing new about them, they are plain, old, garden variety Socialists, Progressives and Feminazis who are trying to wrap their stale old rhetoric in the banner of atheism to get some new traction.

[Drewish]

I'd like to quote something form another thread that I found insightful:

The problem I see with permanently, directly leashing progressive social action to Atheism in this case is that they will of course be relying on social science to tell them what society should do. They're going to try to look at the evidence and say, "the science says this is the best course of action to get to our desired end." If you don't agree, they'll boot you out for a lack of intellectual rigor.

I'm not sure if anyone else has been paying attention, but social science is in the midst of a replication crisis. This bears directly on anyone who plans on demanding analytical purity. If you're going to demand that people fall in line, you have to be absolutely certain that you are right. You can't be in modern social science. The replication problem is too big, and in too many fields there are just too many opportunities to fill your own plate with self-serving publications and ignore serious countervailing publications.

Having a progressive political agenda makes one even more susceptible to this because they have goals that they want (which is fine) and they will inevitably find more evidence approving of their desired methods, because that's what they'll look for. And the social sciences are big and diverse enough to give it to them, with not enough consilience to keep that kind of behavior in check.

This problem is already too common in policymaking, where policymakers latch on to their preferred methods and simply refuse to question them. They'll get a study, or an executive summary of a study, that says their policy of choice works. They won't go looking for disconfirming evidence, they won't go looking for more supporting evidence. They think what they think, and when asked why, they'll point to their one, unreplicated study that they didn't entirely read.

This is why guys like Bill Easterly spend half their time writing brilliant things about foreign aid, and the other half raving like a lunatic about how nobody is doing anything differently in foreign aid even though the more modern research says everything they're doing is achieving nothing.

Atheism+ will do the same thing, because everybody does it. It won't be better. They aren't selecting for people who will do a better job of poring through social science to find the best method to achieve their ends; they're selecting for people who believe what they believe. This isn't a way to a more empowered and effective progressive atheist movement. It's factionalism.

[Audley Strange]

Word.

[Robert_S]

I'm waiting for them to ban alcohol at their gatherings. As an alcoholic, it could make me very uncomfortable to be around other people drinking. Also, aren't there studies that draw a stronger correlation to alcohol consumption to rape than rape jokes to rape?

Since it seems that I am unable to control and enjoy drinking, it is also an ableist issue.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think they'd be on board with that.... it would create a schism among the Atheist Plusers..... it would have to be Atheist+, and then Atheist +/-

[Thinking Aloud]

There's definitely something up on the ceiling that keeps distracting her/them. I'm wondering what it is. Seems not to be distracting the blokes though.

[Robert_S]

Where did you find those pics that fast?