I came across an article in the British on-line version of The Guardian, describing a new group called "Atheism+". And, not a very flattering article at that. The Guardian describes the group, in the sub-title to the article, as "A new movement, Atheism+, has prompted non-believers to spit venom at one another rather than at true believers."
I was curious, so I dug a little further. It's reported that the members describe themselves as the Third Wave of atheism, rejecting the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens) as a group. Purportedly based upon humanist ideas, PZ Meyers, in promoting Atheism+, clearly stated that if you don't agree with the groups goals,
...then you’re an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, “Asshole Atheists” and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it.
I just had a thought: maybe the anti-atheist+ people are sad because they don’t have a cool logo. So I made one for the asshole atheists.
Part of the rejection of the New Atheists comes from a founder, one Jennifer McCreight, who stated her critique of the atheist movement is because it includes groups of old, white, men.
Noted atheist Thunderf00t did an article that eviscerates Atheism+, entitled A+ (atheism plus), For A Third Glorious Age of Total Agreement
As to myself, I can't say that I really know that much about it. Maybe what I've read so far is nothing more than unfavorable bias. And, am just wondering if anyone else has heard of this, or knows anything about it.
This is the link to go to Atheism+.
Les règlements sont faits pour les médiocres et les indécis ; rien de grand ne se fait sans l'imagination.
"La faute est dans les moyens bien plus que dans les principes"
I guess I'm a female Asshole...
Yeah, I've heard of it and I'm not much encouraged by it. This guy is presuming to promote HIS values as "Atheism+," and if you don't agree with him, you're an "asshole," which is to say suspect, a non-conformist, not going with the program.
It's been said that organizing atheists is like herding cats, because we all tend to go our own way. Certainly many of us would agree with the list of "virtues" which are spelled out in Atheism+, but I don't think any of us want to have our values dictated to us. Most of us already went through that trip when we were involved in religions, and my suspicion is that going from one form of superimposed dogma to another isn't our cup of orange pekoe.
I'm in favor of human rights, critical thinking, personal responsibility and a lot of other stuff. Do not let that imply in any fashion that I therefore endorse Atheism+.
There is an endless list of what humans don’t “believe” in (have faith in), and as far as I can see, there aren’t any organizations of any consequence built around any of those “disbeliefs”.
Humans don’t rally behind not believing in something. It’s just not human nature. Why should atheists be any different??
That being said, then, I can understand the frustration of the wanna be “activist atheist”, but their silly arguments are unseemly, at least to me, and I consider myself somewhat intelligent.
Right now, I’m into “Deep Atheism”.
Well I'm not a conformist so I don't like being told that I have to agree with everything said.
That kinda reminds me of religion and how they tell you to believe what they tell you to believe and you cannot question them. So I don't think I like this.
I heard of Atheism+ first over youtube, and generally, people in the YT community are poopooing the premise.I can kind of see where they're trying to go with this, but they aren't allowing room for discussion or empathy for opposing views. Treat it like a debate issue and open the forum to discussion, PZ; don't start mudslinging out the gate.I personally don't see the necessity of it and I don't see that there are logical reasons for it. That said, I have done a little bit of reading and come across a nice article on a blog that prettymuch sums it up for me. Please check it out.
Interesting link. My favorite line was actually in the comments:
"PoodlesAugust 27, 2012 12:40 PM
I think some people need and thrive on drama, and if it doesn't come to them, they create it. It's all petty and sad."
That "Some people" is a term that could encompass PZ, Greta, McCreight, and others. So, I don't read them.
My introduction to Atheism+ was Atheism’s Growing Pains, where
McCreight ... called for a movement to advocate for an explicitly social justice-oriented flavor of atheism.
The animating idea behind Atheism+ is that atheism isn’t a stopping point, but a beginning. We’re atheists not because we want to gather and engage in collective back-slapping, not because we want to chortle at the foolishness of benighted believers, but because we care about creating a world that’s more just, more peaceful, more enlightened, and we see organized religion as standing in the way of this goal. We consider politically engaged atheism an effective way to demolish this obstacle, to refute the beliefs that have so often throughout human history been used to excuse cruelty, inequality, ignorance, oppression and violence. [emphasis mine]
...bloggers...[that] have decided that the community needs to be cleansed of subversive thought by expelling everyone who disagrees with them, and they are the ones to do it with a new movement called ‘Atheism Plus‘. The properties they most associate with folk like the horsemen are ‘old’ ‘white’ ‘male’ and ‘privileged’ (see below). Indeed a New Statesman article frequently quoted by the Freethoughtbloggers who started this, states quite clearly that:
“Atheism+ is a reaction against the “New Atheism” of Richard Dawkins”.
Thunderf00t cites the divisive "wildly over the top polarizing rhetoric of eradicating and purging dark evil impurities that threaten our purity of essence" of self-identified Atheism+ blogger Richard Carrier, who happens to be a white male.
As a feminist, I see Atheist women who are tired of sexual harassment, calling for Atheism to embrace social justice, just what Secular Humanism claims to embrace, instead of ignoring our own oppression of one another. White male Atheists backlash ensues. Atheism+ is interpreted by some white males such as Richard Carrier a vehicle to "cut free dead weight" such as Skepchick. Justifying other white males to put down the entire movement as cult-like targeting people rather than ideas.
... real unashamedly divisive, brazenly polarizing totalitarian ‘you’re either with us or against us’ type stuff.
There you go all you Feminazi gay whiners who just want to stop white privileged males from using Atheism to excuse cruelty, inequality, ignorance, oppression and violence.
Did you notice how we went from sexually harassed women informally sharing information with other women about which Atheist assholes men to avoid to assuming Atheism+ was an attack on white Atheist men as a whole? Did I see closing rank against uppity women?
One-two punch! Kapow! Backlash spin eliminates your feminist consciousness from the debate. So even an open minded guy like Sentient Biped buys into the idea that you Atheism+ folks have a personality disorder, you just need to create drama. You hysterical women who want the vote are all alike. Oh wait, that was last century. Oh well, good tricks never die.