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”.
To be honest, I was more than "turned off" by the comment of PZ Meyers, though I don't know that he represents that group as a whole. And not because of the use of the term "asshole." I've used worse.
What bothers me is his apparent stance that "if you don't agree with me, get the f%(k out." Some much for diversity of thought, viewpoint, and consideration of an idea that, while in conflict with your own, may actually have value, if for no other reason than to shed light on and strengthen your own viewpoint.
..."if you don't agree with me, get the f%(k out" sounds wayyyy too much like dogma for my tastes.
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.