What does Atheism Plus mean to you?

What does the Plus in Atheism Plus mean to you, and why is it important to you as a person?
I thought we should start this place up right and get an idea of what each of us see as the core principles which they want to advocate for.

So Far:
+ Actively striving to improve the welfare and lives of humans in the real world and on the internet.
+ Abolishing of needless inequality and compromise between liberty and equality where they are at odds.

At the moment it's damage limitation.

The plus in atheism to me means

+ Actively striving to improve the welfare and lives of humans in the real world and on the internet.

Broad goal I know.

Currently, the Plus in Atheism Plus means Hate to me. Sorry, but that alleged "safe space" is a cesspool of bigotry from my perspective. This is very disappointing since I initially had hopes for this Atheism Plus thing.

Now I'm here. So, I guess I hope that the plus in Atheism Plus could come to mean something more like I initially thought it did. Still, I must admit, I am highly skeptical.

Dar wrote:Currently, the Plus in Atheism Plus means Hate to me. Sorry, but that alleged "safe space" is a cesspool of bigotry from my perspective. This is very disappointing since I initially had hopes for this Atheism Plus thing.

Now I'm here. So, I guess I hope that the plus in Atheism Plus could come to mean something more like I initially thought it did. Still, I must admit, I am highly skeptical.

I'm currently a 56+ post survivor of the safe space forum, and ironically enough, I'm hoping this forum to become a safe space from the safe space. I don't feel too safe there, having to deal with unwarranted assumptions and the least charitable reading of my posts borne out of hostility at the slightest of criticism, knowing that if I were to argue back, ban would be imminent.

devilsadvocate wrote:

Dar wrote:Currently, the Plus in Atheism Plus means Hate to me. Sorry, but that alleged "safe space" is a cesspool of bigotry from my perspective. This is very disappointing since I initially had hopes for this Atheism Plus thing.

Now I'm here. So, I guess I hope that the plus in Atheism Plus could come to mean something more like I initially thought it did. Still, I must admit, I am highly skeptical.

I'm currently a 56+ post survivor of the safe space forum, and ironically enough, I'm hoping this forum to become a safe space from the safe space. I don't feel too safe there, having to deal with unwarranted assumptions and the least charitable reading of my posts borne out of hostility at the slightest of criticism, knowing that if I were to argue back, ban would be imminent.

Yeah, I find it odd that sometimes even arguing against a moderator is seen as some grievous error. Surely in a debate, even in ones that are heavily moderated, you must adhere to disagreement, even aggressive ones? And if someone wishes to engage with me in a rude manner, then surely it wouldn't be out of order if I should choose to engage with that person in an equally rude manner? I sure as hell don't vouch for any kind of special treatment, either. So yeah, if this forum should succeed in its purpose to create a "non-safe space from the safe space" as it were, that would be an accomplishment in my book. In my opinion, even though it's only existed for scarcely a couple of days, I already feel I can speak my mind more freely and openly here about A+ with supposedly proponents of A+ without the fear of reprisal. It's great.

devilsadvocate wrote:...I'm hoping this forum to become a safe space from the safe space. I don't feel too safe there, having to deal with unwarranted assumptions and the least charitable reading of my posts borne out of hostility at the slightest of criticism, knowing that if I were to argue back, ban would be imminent.

To be perfectly honest I wouldn't be shocked to see a user like coyote come here to specifically attack people...or for any of the regulars on that forum to do so.

[TRIGGER WARNING]

Pitchguest:

I resent your passive aggressive jab of implying that one could be correct when they disagree with a moderator. Words matter. If you don't respect that, don't use them.

Clearly your just some privileged jerk who got his feefees hurt.

Who the fuck are you?

Fuck off.

I think you need to spend some time educating yourself.

What, you haven't agreed with us yet? You are doubling down.

You said 'fear'! Fear could be a trigger for those with anxiety disorders! How can you be a decent person when you perpetuate such ableist language?

Why haven't the moderators banned this obvious troll yet?

How can we ever hope to discuss social justice with women hating bastards like this around?

***SORRY pitchguest, I couldn't resist***

I too hope this forum remains a nice and comfortable space for discussion.

Really? Seven responses and only one actually had anything to do with the question?
And that one was from the forum's creator.

+ Actively striving to improve the welfare and lives of humans in the real world and on the internet.

I'm collecting these so if you'd like to stop complaining about the safe space long enough to attempt to contribute to this new space, K THANKS!

Hey Argyll -

Yes, it can be frustrating can't it when you don't get the responses you like or deserve. Yesterday I spent about 2 and a half hours on a post about the topic of empathy across demographic devides and the only response was a one liner asking me to elaborate further ! Dangnabbit !

Peevishness is one response, and this is good for venting feelings, but I'm not certain that it actually produces the constructive conversations you'd like to have. Bad temper may be a feature of certain forums from time to time, but it doesn't have to be, you know. Maybe you've been unlucky with your choices of internet forums so far and have begun to think it's the norm.

Anyway, I think you'll find that most of the conversation on the topic you proposed is in a similarly titled thread in another section of the forum.

I'm turning off my computer for the evening now to do something else, and I think I know someone who should follow my example.

I reckon the complaints are simply the result of a very disappointing first encounter with a forum dedicated to Atheism+. I'm just going to assume that, in general, that kind hostility and abuse is not representative of people who associate with the concept of atheism combined with social justice, and take it up from there.

Argyle wrote:Really? Seven responses and only one actually had anything to do with the question? And that one was from the forum's creator.

+ Actively striving to improve the welfare and lives of humans in the real world and on the internet.

I'm collecting these so if you'd like to stop complaining about the safe space long enough to attempt to contribute to this new space, K THANKS!

Some complaining is to be expected, since so many have come here after having bad experiences at the safe space wing of the forums. I definitely needed to vent a little.

I think the right way to look at the complaints is not just as complaints though, but as indication of what qualities of the safe space forum we don't want to see here.

Anyways, the "+" represents abolishing of needless inequality and compromise between liberty and equality where they are at odds, to me. I don't know what the right way to compromise is, that's one reason I'm here on the forums.

That's two

The situation we are in is that the 'conversation' (atheism and progressive politics) and the 'meta-conversation' (moderation policy in the 'safe space') are deeply and inextricably linked.

We can't really discuss one without discussing the other.

This is because if the ideas of the one are such that they require the protection of censorship of opposing views, then they lose all interest among skeptics.

It's worth bearing in mind that 'atheism+' as a movement was largely spawned by people who, in the wider skeptic movement, switched from a 'conversation' (godlessness in the world) to a meta-conversation (sexism at Skeptic Conferences) in the first place.

A label to denote Secular humanism with an anti-religion focus.

Argyle wrote:Really? Seven responses and only one actually had anything to do with the question?
And that one was from the forum's creator.

+ Actively striving to improve the welfare and lives of humans in the real world and on the internet.

I'm collecting these so if you'd like to stop complaining about the safe space long enough to attempt to contribute to this new space, K THANKS!

Thanks for dismissing my honest answer to your question Argyle.

Dar wrote:Currently, the Plus in Atheism Plus means Hate to me. Sorry, but that alleged "safe space" is a cesspool of bigotry from my perspective. This is very disappointing since I initially had hopes for this Atheism Plus thing.

Now I'm here. So, I guess I hope that the plus in Atheism Plus could come to mean something more like I initially thought it did. Still, I must admit, I am highly skeptical.

If you want to know what I had expected Atheism Plus to be, I'll refer you to the home page and faq page at atheismplus.com

To me, "atheism plus" should mean "secular humanism, with action".

I share Dar's experience, that it has come to mean something else. But I can get over that.

I'm a lifelong atheist with a longstanding interest in "making the world a better place" though of course any one person's efforts seem like a drop in the bucket. I joined a UU church about 5 years ago, because they know how to broadly do "humanism, with action" better than any other group I've come across (and also because it's nice to have a community of like-minded people IRL).

There is more navel-gazing among the UUs than I'm inclined to do, and I've run into a disturbing, if not surprising, bias among UU ministers: while skeptics & rationalists abound in the "pews" (actually, chairs), it's become clear that "over-intellectualization" is one of the few sins members can commit, in the eyes of the ministers.

It's interesting to be active in a group that prides itself on "The inherent worth and dignity of every person" and "A free and responsible search for truth and meaning", that prides itself on tolerance, and experience judgmentalism about being a rationalist.

Hence, my potential interest in "secular humanism, with action", or what's been called "Atheism Plus".

What Atheism+ is supposed to mean is Atheism + social justice.

How I interpret it is Atheism + hipsters. Atheism + Puritannical Leftism.

To me, A+ (in intent) is nothing more than a marketing move, a rebranding of secular humanism to have a heavier emphasis on antitheism and cash in on the newfound popularity of atheism. Not that there's anything wrong with that (other than the name itself), but I don't see anything radically new either. It's basically a continuation of what FFRF, Secular coalition, ACA and various other secular/rationalist/skeptic/atheist groups and charities do.



However, where A+ completely failed and continues to fail is in living up to the goals they set out. Instead of persuing the lofty goals of actually fighting for social justice in a tangible way, they've instead decided to focus on first world problems and their own narcissistic victimhood when they get chided for persuing stupid first world problems.

AliRadicali wrote:To me, A+ (in intent) is nothing more than a marketing move, a rebranding of secular humanism to have a heavier emphasis on antitheism and cash in on the newfound popularity of atheism. Not that there's anything wrong with that (other than the name itself), but I don't see anything radically new either. It's basically a continuation of what FFRF, Secular coalition, ACA and various other secular/rationalist/skeptic/atheist groups and charities do.



However, where A+ completely failed and continues to fail is in living up to the goals they set out. Instead of persuing the lofty goals of actually fighting for social justice in a tangible way, they've instead decided to focus on first world problems and their own narcissistic victimhood when they get chided for persuing stupid first world problems.

Other than objecting towards how religion fuels sexism, racism, homophobia etc I don't really note much anti-theism amongst atheism+.

Skavau wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:To me, A+ (in intent) is nothing more than a marketing move, a rebranding of secular humanism to have a heavier emphasis on antitheism and cash in on the newfound popularity of atheism. Not that there's anything wrong with that (other than the name itself), but I don't see anything radically new either. It's basically a continuation of what FFRF, Secular coalition, ACA and various other secular/rationalist/skeptic/atheist groups and charities do.



However, where A+ completely failed and continues to fail is in living up to the goals they set out. Instead of persuing the lofty goals of actually fighting for social justice in a tangible way, they've instead decided to focus on first world problems and their own narcissistic victimhood when they get chided for persuing stupid first world problems.

Other than objecting towards how religion fuels sexism, racism, homophobia etc I don't really note much anti-theism amongst atheism+.

The reason they chose atheism+ rather than calling it secular humanism+(or something) essentially comes down to their anti-theist stance. You wont get a straight answer out of them for asking, though.

PZ Myers, the big boss over at Free(dom from)ThoughtBlogs, which is arguably the group behind A+, has this delightful little nugget:
"I was entirely sympathetic to the planned community activities (assisting in the art gallery in town, visiting the elderly, doing a highway cleanup), but I couldn’t do them as part of a church group, as a matter of principle. Who was going to get credit for this work? The church, of course. I will not and can not do that; it’s providing support for beliefs I consider contemptible."
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/01/the-stedman-paradox/

He's talking about his refusal to endorse volunteer activities organised by Morris Freethinkers in cooperation with a church group.

Again, I think A+ is essentially promoting secular humanist values, and the only major motives I see for them to call it otherwise are either the desire to profit from Atheism's popularity or to distance themselves from secularists who think religion shouldn't matter to doing good.