It seems that there is a lot of fuss being made in the atheist community regarding an apparent sub-culture known as "Atheism-Plus."  I've noted a few pieces here and there on Atheist Nexus regarding it, though I don't know as any particular consensus has emerged out of A|N on the topic.  I DO know how I feel about it, and a few weeks ago, I shared my point of view on Reason Being's blog, to wit:

My personal evolution to atheism was a long and slow one, probably starting with the first time I read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land back in the late 60's though 9/11 and finally being emboldened by seeing atheists speak out on a discussion board I participate in. Somewhere in all of that I came to the conclusion that I was an atheist and began to strengthen myself in that position and become more vocal myself.

Long before then, I recognized that the GLBT community was getting the short end of the stick, that the environment was getting mucked up by indiscriminate pollution, that a woman's right to choose should remain solely HERS and not be at the whim of either government or religion. These and a lot of other issues were on my mind and I had arrived at what I think of as positive positions on them decades before my attitude toward atheism resolved itself. ALL of those positions were the result of my observations on how things were happening in the world and my own rational processing and analysis of them.

For what I understand, atheism-plus wants these issues and others to be bound together into a supposedly necessary superset of atheism. To me, this is an artificial and manipulated association of issues. I base that assertion on the fact that those positions came together within me ON THEIR OWN, not because of some supposed relationship between them but because they were all part of my own personal bent and attitude. Indeed, my position on these issues is more a product of my approach to them - rational, thoughtful, and informed - than it has been a product of any one of them, atheism included.

I am an atheist. I am also a supporter of my friends who are gay or Lesbian or bisexual or transgendered.  I support women's rights and am very conscious of environmental and other issues I care about. To me, each of these issues has one thing in common - ME. Otherwise, they have as much in common with each other as a fish does with a bicycle.

I don't associate them with each other ... and I Will NOT Be TOLD that I have to.

Views: 664


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Alan Perlman on February 4, 2013 at 7:46pm

I agree with the "humanist" POV.  It's a broad label, but it covers the socially liberal positions Lorne mentions.  E.g., in humanism, human autonomy and responsibility are key values, so yes, gays can marry and women can have medically-safe abortions.  We're responsible for screwiing up the environment and fixing it.  No need for God in any of this. 

Comment by Pat on February 4, 2013 at 7:45pm

I believe I'm one of the few pieces, that Loren referred to, that first mentioned Atheism-Plus, back in September of last year. Since that time, my opinion of this particular dogmatic movement, has only diminished.

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 4, 2013 at 7:01pm

Sentient, it is not that simple. People have to pass a test before they can play my game. Sarah Palin cant play. She can play in the sandbox while others are being tested.  On issues of fundamental fairness I predict unanimous results, or damn near it.

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 4, 2013 at 3:34pm

Sentient, you bring up an interesting question. Does critical thinking result in certain positions such as atheism and opposition to discrimination. I say that it does.

Some issues do not permit of unanimity among thinkers. Others do.

Comment by Loren Miller on February 4, 2013 at 2:39pm

And I
Will say, "FIE!"
By and by
About pie in the sky when you die
(It's a LIE!)

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 4, 2013 at 2:37pm

Dont say aint you momma will faint you papa will fall in a bucket of paint. your sister will cry. Your dog will call the fbi.

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 4, 2013 at 2:36pm

Strictly speaking Mathew is correct, nothing to do with atheism. They have everything to do with anti-theism. No santa, no tooth fairy, no gods. So what. 

Women living as second class citizens, property or worse: big what. Racism: big what. Discrimination against gays and atheists and other religious groups: big what. etc.

And if the group is known as atheism PLUS it is fair to say that they are conveying more than the naked issue of is there or aint there gods.

Comment by matthew greenberg on February 4, 2013 at 2:13pm

agreed Loren.  none of those issues has anything to do with Atheism, although i suppose it's not surprising that the vast majority of Atheists tend to hold them.  like you said, an analytic approach on those issues invariably leads one to the conclusions you have made. 

for example, you mentioned the environment.  most Atheists are believers in Science, and the overwhelming majority of scientists tells us that climate change is happening.  as natural skeptics, many Atheists may take a look at what the other side is saying.  it just happens that the other side makes absurd arguments often based on Biblical impossibility, or simply deny the facts that we can see right in front of our faces.  so we reject the stupid and accept the scientific view. 

same with LGBT discrimination.  when we see that the reasons for objecting to gay rights is "the Bible says so" we reject that out of hand.  the Bible says lots of stupid shit, so they got that one wrong too. 

but ultimately, i see no reason that an Atheist needs to accept these things.  an Atheist simply doesn't believe in any Gods - no other requirement needed to join the club. 

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 4, 2013 at 1:11pm

I dont know anything about that group atheism-plus. But I do know that those issues you cite have something of greater significance than your  stance. And that is they are wrongly decided by tea bagging right wing pieces of human garbage and have their origins in religion.

And to the extent issues causing discrimination and harm are promulgated by religion it makes sense to have an atheist group proclaim their wrongful sanctimonious etiology and the rightful thinking position of rationalism. Ambiguous issues like the proper form of government and interpretation of the second amendment can be excluded from the purview of an atheist group.

And I strongly disagree with steve re the word atheism. Belt it out to show your opposition to the ugliness of religion. For those who consider it divisive or offensive to believers, I say fuck em, believers did not cringe when burning heretics and a million other ineffable offenses.

Comment by SteveInCO on February 4, 2013 at 7:44am

Hear hear!

I get irritated when a group whose stated purpose is to deal with church state issues and getting people to accept atheism as a legitimate point of view hares off into the weeds and pushes some sort of unrelated cause.

(FFRF is the best of the big organizations in this regard but they slip occasionally; they ran a slam on pro-gun people recently in their newspaper before Sandy Hook happened (so it wasn't even a hot issue then) and a number of their members called them on it.  And their pro-union attitude leaks through often as well.  They do regularly discuss feminism but they generally do so in a "see how misogynist the bible is" way so it's somewhat related.)

Apparently someone is trying to start up an "Atheist party" (they had a booth at the reason rally) but its planks mostly have nothing to do with church state issues and are basically redistribute-the-wealth progressive (if not outright socialist)--well we have parties for that already!  What does this have to do with the lack of existence of doG?

A group that wants to push a particular political cause is better off not polarizing people based on incidentals, and that cuts both ways.  The organizers of the Atheist party would be better off dropping "Atheist" from their name (since most people still have a very negative image of "Atheist") if they want to push progressivism, and atheist groups would be better off focusing on church state issues and getting society to accept and tolerate atheism.

I don't try to claim my rather libertarian political opinions are necessarily a part and parcel of atheism, and I'd appreciate it if others would extend the same courtesy.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service