What is Atheism+?

Atheism Plus is a movement dedicated to promoting social justice and countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry inside and outside of the atheist community.

So what can we do?
Get the message out there, stand up to those who would denigrate others, organise with local political groups to ensure our message is heard, work the local media to highlight the concerns as and when they appear.

I'm interested in hearing what "social justice" means to people here, and what you would feel are the key social issues you do, or would like to, work on.

I know many people (in general) use it to at least include "countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry", but do some people have a different understanding of its meaning? Narrower or broader, or different in some way?

As good ol' Wikipedia says, "The [term] has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it."

To be honest, I try to avoid the term if at all possible. It's just too broad. To me, it actually means little more than 'left of centre politics', and the danger is that it can sound like a dishonest rebranding of existing ideas. I know that in US, the right have seized on this, I believe when President Obama used the term, and claimed that it was a code-word for slavery reparations. This was utter nonsense of course, but it does show a potential problem with re-labelling.

and apparently this forum is meant to apparently train appropriate acolytes for admission to the other forum?

WTF?

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:In my head, at this point, that forum is sort of like a sieve. People who want to talk about an atheist social movement but don't get the basics enough to stick around here go there and slowly the rough edges get knockd off, their consciousness is raised and they become part of the movement, then, when they're all smooth some kind person points them at a thread or two over here and they pass down the line.

No, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

"the basics" of that forum are not universal, but that forum is not a good place to debate the basics and convince people who are unaware of them of their truth, I'm not sure it would be possible to have that discussion within a safe space.

This is where those discussions can be had, and (based on the unstated premise that the basics of that forum are true and the justifying arguments are convincing) once people get those basics, they'll probably want to participate in the movement from its home.

Compare with my statement from this forum about what this forum is about

It's about having the arguments that cannot be had on the other forum, trying to convince people who are interested in A+ but not in that mindset and of that worldview why the positions they don't like or don't understand are taken (and modify those positions that don't stand up).

It's [also] about having somewhere for completely unproductive discussions about A+ to take place, so that they don't keep happening over at the other forum.

When movements are foundational you tend to have a core of activists who are very familliar with the topic and who agree on basically everything and then you get the people who are almost in agreement.

Next you get a lot of people who are attracted to what the movement presents itself as about, who are not grounded in the basics of that movement. Presuming that the basics of that movement are sound, over time and discussion, they will become so and where the basics are not sound, the basics themselves will be polished.

Sadly, because of the issues involved in A+, people not roughly grounded in the basics are often unable to discuss them within a safe space, so here is the space for that.

I present it as a sieve for forum members, rather than the basic ideals, because I happen to think the basic ideals are sound, but that's just my bias.

Hey Diogenes -

It seems that this forum is shaping up to be a sort of air-lock between the outside world and the blue forum bubble. Some hope it will be a loading bay, and others an escape hatch ! I guess it's partly the quality of the arguments in here which will determine which way it goes !

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:No, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

"the basics" of that forum are not universal, but that forum is not a good place to debate the basics and convince people who are unaware of them of their truth, I'm not sure it would be possible to have that discussion within a safe space.

This is where those discussions can be had, and (based on the unstated premise that the basics of that forum are true and the justifying arguments are convincing) once people get those basics, they'll probably want to participate in the movement from its home.

Ok. Maybe it is my bias in science but this looks like you're suggesting that the "movement" has a core set of beliefs that are essentially inviolate? In the molecular genetics I do we have assumptions based on observed and tested phenomena or a central dogma...replication, transcription, translation...or DNA<->RNA->protein...which is all based on experimentation and is pretty much denotative. I don't see a study-based foundation for A+ which makes it look to me like a belief system.

Again, this could likely be due to my lack of experience in philosophy.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:
Sadly, because of the issues involved in A+, people not roughly grounded in the basics are often unable to discuss them within a safe space, so here is the space for that.

I present it as a sieve for forum members, rather than the basic ideals, because I happen to think the basic ideals are sound, but that's just my bias.

I don't see where ever accepting ad hominem attacks as valid arguments will ever advance any particular schema.

I also thing all basic ideals should be eligible for questioning. That's, again, my own bias.

I think I see where you're coming from, though, and can respect your position.

Diogenes wrote:

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:snip

Ok. Maybe it is my bias in science but this looks like you're suggesting that the "movement" has a core set of beliefs that are essentially inviolate?

No, I am suggesting that in my opinion the movement has a core set of values and principles which I believe are sound.

In the molecular genetics I do we have assumptions based on observed and tested phenomena or a central dogma...replication, transcription, translation...or DNA<->RNA->protein...which is all based on experimentation and is pretty much denotative. I don't see a study-based foundation for A+ which makes it look to me like a belief system.

I hope that as disucssions go on on this site you will find just that foundation, maybe not in published studies alone, as a social movement philosophical argument will enter into it.

I don't see where ever accepting ad hominem attacks as valid arguments will ever advance any particular schema.

I'm not sure I follow?

I also thing all basic ideals should be eligible for questioning. That's, again, my own bias.

They are eligible for questioning, my point was that in my opinion they'll probably win out.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:No, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

"the basics" of that forum are not universal, but that forum is not a good place to debate the basics and convince people who are unaware of them of their truth, I'm not sure it would be possible to have that discussion within a safe space.

How could providing the reason and evidence for your position be detrimental to "safe space"? isn't that the whole point of the FAQ and other such resources?
My guess is that the reason you don't like this idea is the fact that in order to convince someone, you need to actaully hear what hhe/she has to say, and that person might say something which contradicts A+doctrine.

This is where those discussions can be had, and (based on the unstated premise that the basics of that forum are true and the justifying arguments are convincing) once people get those basics, they'll probably want to participate in the movement from its home.

And here we have the crux of the problem: A+theism moderators ARE operating under the assumption that they are right, despite refusing to explain or defend their position.

Compare with my statement from this forum about what this forum is about

It's about having the arguments that cannot be had on the other forum, trying to convince people who are interested in A+ but not in that mindset and of that worldview why the positions they don't like or don't understand are taken (and modify those positions that don't stand up).

It's [also] about having somewhere for completely unproductive discussions about A+ to take place, so that they don't keep happening over at the other forum.

Your bias shines right through in your wording here. ANY critical discussion of A+ policies or beliefs is branded unproductive (and worse) on that other forum, which is largely what's wrong with it to begin with.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:snip

Ok. Maybe it is my bias in science but this looks like you're suggesting that the "movement" has a core set of beliefs that are essentially inviolate?

No, I am suggesting that in my opinion the movement has a core set of values and principles which I believe are sound.

I'm not sure I follow?

They are eligible for questioning, my point was that in my opinion they'll probably win out.

The argument style on the A+ forum...in general dissenters are yelled-down and called trolls. Those are ad hom arguments and, in my opinion, have no place in a discussion about trying to advance any cause in society. The Matt Dillahunty experience is a good example.

AliRadicali wrote:
How could providing the reason and evidence for your position be detrimental to "safe space"? isn't that the whole point of the FAQ and other such resources?

Putting the best possible face on it (giving them the benefit of the doubt) the other forum is populated by a number of marginalized and in some cases, damaged people. Being presented with evidence can create further harm. For example, discussion of rape can be potentially harmful to a person who has been raped. They want it to be a safe space where they aren't going to be confronted or offended. So...let them have that.

The safe forum restricts discussion on such topics quite broadly making it pretty much a useless place to have any kind of discussion. It's kind of a mutual masturbation society. By contrast, that's where I see this forum can be useful. Because I had two interesting discussions locked while I was still keen to continue. I AM interested in the goals of atheism+ but can't stand the nonsense that goes on over there.

It doesn't matter too much to me what CD2K2 says this place is intended to be, let's wait and see how it is. There are obviously going to be some people here who are pro-A+ and anti-A+, just as there will be people who favour or disfavour the way the safe space forum approaches the topic. The only essential component is that people can discuss these issues with (relative) freedom here. That will make it a suitable space for you to make yourself heard in regardless of your particular take on this issue.