The Atheism Plus Discussion Thread

[neamhspleachas]

I understand that AtheismPlus is a movement in formation, where several blogposts have popped up in various places on the Internet, describing this new initiative.

Therefore, people interested in any of the focus issues mentioned (atheism, feminism, skepticism, humanism) would have to know if this is something for them.

I should make it clear that I have some doubts about this new initiative, but I could of course be wrong. Hence, these questions.

If any of these questions have been answered elsewhere, a link/quote would be much appreciated. If I have missed any answers already given, mea culpa.


Organization

Who controls AtheismPlus?

Is this new movement intended as a tight organization in the traditional sense, with a chairperson, a board of directors, etc., or is it to be a more loosely affiliated movement, with no central body?

If AtheismPlus is intended as a tight organization, who is in charge?

Who speaks for AtheismPlus?

In order for a new movement to gain foothold, it is obvious that media contact should be established as soon as possible. Traditionally, it means having one or more spokespersons.

Who are the media contacts for AtheismPlus?



Membership status

What constitutes membership of AtheismPlus?

E.g., does having an account on this forum constitute membership of AtheismPlus? Will there be membership cards, where members belong to a central organization? Or can anyone just claim membership?

If a member violates the rules of AtheismPlus to the point of expulsion, who decides to do so?

All groups, movements and traditional organizations experience dissent so unacceptable that action has to be taken to remove dissent from disrupting the goals. Who will make that decision in AtheismPlus?

Subsequent repercussions

If a member is expelled, will there be repercussions outside AtheistPlus, e.g. in the form of contact to other groups, conferences or employers, or is that prohibited by all members of AtheistPlus?


Goals

What are the goals of AtheismPlus?

Which political goals will AtheismPlus work for, if any?

In what way will AtheismPlus work to achieve those goals?

Will it be a "pundit" movement, where decision makers are sought to be influenced by argumentation, evidence and reason through blog posts, articles, demonstrations, speeches and lectures, or will AtheismPlus act as a political group, seeking direct political influence, e.g. by running for office, and/or joining with other groups to influence and change their agenda?


Skepticism

Does skepticism lead to atheism?

Some skeptics maintain that skepticism is a method to establish the validity of testable claims and nothing else, while others claim that skepticism should be taken to its logical end, reaching a conclusion on all issues, e.g. the existence of God.

Can skepticism tell us which political platform is the most skeptical?

Some skeptics maintain that politics is inherently a matter of opinion, of how society should be, while others claim that it is not just possible but inevitable to establish which political parties are the most skeptically and rationally founded, and therefore should get support.


Atheism

Is there room for agnostics in AtheistPlus?

Agnostics maintain that knowledge of deities cannot be gained. Can an agnostic still support the goals of AtheismPlus?

Is there room for religious believers in AtheistPlus?

Secular humanism also encompasses religious believers who just happen to think state and religion should be separated. Can a religious person still support the goals of AtheismPlus?


Feminism

Is AtheismPlus equity feminist or gender feminist?

Equity feminism aims for full civil and legal equality for women, while gender feminism goes one step further, and seeks to eradicate gender roles and the privileges/lack hereof altogether.

[Tansy]

Re: equity feminism vs. gender feminism, this is a false dichotomy which has been used to strawman those who argue that feminism is still needed. There is a huge diversity of feminist sub-movements which really can't be reduced to a simple dichotomy. I'd recommend having a look at Wikipedia's page on variants of feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_m ... ideologies) to get an idea of how many different types of feminism are out there.
My understanding is that there's plenty of room in A+ for debates on which sort of feminism is best/which goals feminism should prioritise.

[CFLarsen]

Re: equity feminism vs. gender feminism, this is a false dichotomy which has been used to strawman those who argue that feminism is still needed. There is a huge diversity of feminist sub-movements which really can't be reduced to a simple dichotomy. I'd recommend having a look at Wikipedia's page on variants of feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_m ... ideologies) to get an idea of how many different types of feminism are out there.
My understanding is that there's plenty of room in A+ for debates on which sort of feminism is best/which goals feminism should prioritise.

Thank you for your reply.

I have already read the Wikipedia entry, which is what prompted my question.

If you read my question carefully, I did not ask if there was room for debate on which sort of feminism is best/which goals feminism should prioritize, but what AtheistPlus' stance was wrt to these two forms of feminism.

They are, to my understanding, the two main schools of thought in feminism. Given the previous statements on some blog entries about GLBT issues, it would seem as if AtheistPlus is going more for gender feminism than equity feminism. That is what I am asking: Is that correct?

[Tansy]

What I was taught in my university politics classes is that there are *three* main schools of feminism: liberal feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism. Of these three, liberal feminism focuses on changing laws and institutions to make them more equitable - a bit like what you call equity feminism. Radical feminism focuses on the partiarchy as a structure of oppression and argues that law changes etc. aren't enough; some radical feminists seek to abolish gender altogether. Socialist feminism links feminism with class analysis and points to such issues as the way "women's work" is devalued in society. Equity versus gender feminism is still a false dichotomy and I have never seen anyone identify with either label.
I don't think A+ has a stance on different forms of feminism - at least, not yet.

[CFLarsen]

What I was taught in my university politics classes is that there are *three* main schools of feminism: liberal feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism. Of these three, liberal feminism focuses on changing laws and institutions to make them more equitable - a bit like what you call equity feminism. Radical feminism focuses on the partiarchy as a structure of oppression and argues that law changes etc. aren't enough; some radical feminists seek to abolish gender altogether. Socialist feminism links feminism with class analysis and points to such issues as the way "women's work" is devalued in society. Equity versus gender feminism is still a false dichotomy and in my 5 or so years frequenting feminist spaces I have never seen anyone identify with either label.
I don't think A+ has a stance on different forms of feminism - at least, not yet.

Thank you for your reply.

In that case, I will await word from AtheistPlus on their stance on feminism.

[urbanespaceman]

Is it necessary for the "A+ movement", if indeed it can be called that, take a definite stance on this? It would seem to be arguing about sub-categories, and there's no way in the world you are going to get all members (of this forum, of the group, of a dinner party even!) to agree on every sub-category that you can think of under such larger categories of gender, race etc.

Besides, wouldn't that be boring ... there has to be some room for discussion

Bottom line is I'd rather see an all-inclusive movement, that welcomes open discussion, than a closed off group of people just patting each other on the back. I think we'll see a lot of people come here simply because it has "atheism" in the title, then later realise it's not for them for whatever reason, but that's good, and maybe while they're here we'll give them something to think about

[Xanthë]

Just to head off one issue, I think CFLarsen is actually asking the owners of the AtheismPlus.com domain what the answers to these questions are. Otherwise I don’t think it’s sensible to expect such a laundry list of concerns to be able to be dealt with on a forum as being definitive answer on where Atheism+ as a nascent movement is at!

For example the question, “who are the media contacts for AtheismPlus” doesn’t have a meaningful answer if by that CFLarsen means people who are on board with Atheism+ and self-identify with the movement.

So I’m hoping someone in authority for the domain is prepared to answer the questions that relate to the website — otherwise the scope of the original thread-starting comment is extremely wide and unlikely to be capable of succinct answer in a short discussion when not all inclusive atheist plussers will be reading the forum in general, and this thread in particular.

[rumblestiltsken]

Very strange set of questions from someone who claims to have read the blogs.

My take on the answers:
no-one, anyone, ditto, nothing, can't happen, not relevant, individual choice, individual choice, probably (but groups are not identical), not platform but policies are up for evidence based assessment, why would they want to be part of it? (anyone can support whatever goals they want), ditto, individual choice but supports trans issues so probably more like gender I guess?

That may seem glib, but really the only question there that is difficult is the exclusion/expulsion one. And the answer is that in any space you can get ostracised for your views. There may be aggressive A+ spaces, like Hitchens and Harris were/are for New Athesim. They ridicule atheists who don't agree with their hardline on believers. The majority A+ers seem to be very accepting.

If someone prominent publicly did something heinous and didn't apologise, then they probably would not be invited to A+ events, assuming those ever happen.

Does that help?

[apfergus]

Sort of going off what Xanthë said, I think many of these questions are impossible to answer simply because no one knows. The idea is still being developed and I don't think anyone can realistically intuit where it will ultimately lead. Speaking personally and optimistically regarding the questions on philosophical and political positions, I hope the answer is that none will specifically be endorsed. Shouldn't the point be to be able to come together and discuss? There is so much of the idea marketplace that isn't mutually exclusive, so it would be a shame for a group of perfectly reasonable people to shut out anything other than one narrow viewpoint. I just don't think it will happen.

[CFLarsen]

Is it necessary for the "A+ movement", if indeed it can be called that, take a definite stance on this? It would seem to be arguing about sub-categories, and there's no way in the world you are going to get all members (of this forum, of the group, of a dinner party even!) to agree on every sub-category that you can think of under such larger categories of gender, race etc.

Besides, wouldn't that be boring ... there has to be some room for discussion

Bottom line is I'd rather see an all-inclusive movement, that welcomes open discussion, than a closed off group of people just patting each other on the back. I think we'll see a lot of people come here simply because it has "atheism" in the title, then later realise it's not for them for whatever reason, but that's good, and maybe while they're here we'll give them something to think about

Thank you for your reply.

From what I have gathered, AtheistPlus is very much an activist movement. Unless there are clear goals defined by clear stances, the movement will not have any impact on anything, simply because of the confusion if conflicting stances.

An example: One day, AtheistPlus cooperates with a secular humanist organization to fight the perils of religion, the next it refuses to cooperate with the same secular humanist organization because said organization includes religious people who just happens to think state and religion should be separated.

That would present AtheistPlus with a very muddled agenda.

Just to head off one issue, I think CFLarsen is actually asking the owners of the AtheismPlus.com domain what the answers to these questions are. Otherwise I don’t think it’s sensible to expect such a laundry list of concerns to be able to be dealt with on a forum as being definitive answer on where Atheism+ as a nascent movement is at!

For example the question, “who are the media contacts for AtheismPlus” doesn’t have a meaningful answer if by that CFLarsen means people who are on board with Atheism+ and self-identify with the movement.

So I’m hoping someone in authority for the domain is prepared to answer the questions that relate to the website — otherwise the scope of the original thread-starting comment is extremely wide and unlikely to be capable of succinct answer in a short discussion when not all inclusive atheist plussers will be reading the forum in general, and this thread in particular.

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, you are quite right. I expect to get authoritative answers from those in authority. First, we must find out who those people are, of course. Will anyone step up to the plate and take responsibility?

Very strange set of questions from someone who claims to have read the blogs.

My take on the answers:
no-one, anyone, ditto, nothing, can't happen, not relevant, individual choice, individual choice, probably (but groups are not identical), not platform but policies are up for evidence based assessment, why would they want to be part of it? (anyone can support whatever goals they want), ditto, individual choice but supports trans issues so probably more like gender I guess?

That may seem glib, but really the only question there that is difficult is the exclusion/expulsion one. And the answer is that in any space you can get ostracised for your views. There may be aggressive A+ spaces, like Hitchens and Harris were/are for New Athesim. They ridicule atheists who don't agree with their hardline on believers. The majority A+ers seem to be very accepting.

If someone prominent publicly did something heinous and didn't apologise, then they probably would not be invited to A+ events, assuming those ever happen.

Does that help?

Thank you for your reply.

I have indeed read some blogs, although I couldn't say if I had read all of them. If you could provide a comprehensive list, I shall naturally read those I have not read so far.

Your take on the answers, if they are to be taken as authoritative, would mean that AtheistPlus is born a toothless movement, with no clear goals or ways to achieve them. It would be more of a discussion forum, for the sake of discussion. That is certainly not the impression I get, from reading the blogs.

Sort of going off what Xanthë said, I think many of these questions are impossible to answer simply because no one knows. The idea is still being developed and I don't think anyone can realistically intuit where it will ultimately lead. Speaking personally and optimistically regarding the questions on philosophical and political positions, I hope the answer is that none will specifically be endorsed. Shouldn't the point be to be able to come together and discuss? There is so much of the idea marketplace that isn't mutually exclusive, so it would be a shame for a group of perfectly reasonable people to shut out anything other than one narrow viewpoint. I just don't think it will happen.

Thank you for your reply.

Like I said in the above, it is not my impression that there are many boundaries for AtheistPlus. The issues I mentioned are all specifically mentioned in the blogs I have read.

[urbanespaceman]

An example: One day, AtheistPlus cooperates with a secular humanist organization to fight the perils of religion, the next it refuses to cooperate with the same secular humanist organization because said organization includes religious people who just happens to think state and religion should be separated.

I don't think that would be a problem actually.

If one subset of A+ works together with a SH group to fight against some religious stance, then good, they are joining forces with their allies to further the cause of A+.

If another subset of A+ refuses to join forces with the same SH group because they do not like that the religious members do not want state and church separated, then also good - they are making their point and upholding their standards and morals.

From a purely rational viewpoint, I don't see any problem with this. To assume that there is surely requires us to have a very polarised view of other groups?

I do see what you're getting at though, if the assumption is that A+ is to be an activist movement, but then I wonder if there is any activist movement where all members agree 100% on what they should be doing?

[rumblestiltsken]

Your take on the answers, if they are to be taken as authoritative, would mean that AtheistPlus is born a toothless movement, with no clear goals or ways to achieve them. It would be more of a discussion forum, for the sake of discussion. That is certainly not the impression I get, from reading the blogs.

Toothless? Apply those same questions to atheism (nonplussed, so to speak). Who rules atheism? Who speaks for atheism? Who decides when someone is 'expelled'? Is atheism toothless?

What do you think this is except a loose grouping of people around basic principles? Some will be firebrands, some activists, some lurkers. Like any movement.

[CFLarsen]

An example: One day, AtheistPlus cooperates with a secular humanist organization to fight the perils of religion, the next it refuses to cooperate with the same secular humanist organization because said organization includes religious people who just happens to think state and religion should be separated.

I don't think that would be a problem actually.

If one subset of A+ works together with a SH group to fight against some religious stance, then good, they are joining forces with their allies to further the cause of A+.

If another subset of A+ refuses to join forces with the same SH group because they do not like that the religious members do not want state and church separated, then also good - they are making their point and upholding their standards and morals.

From a purely rational viewpoint, I don't see any problem with this. To assume that there is surely requires us to have a very polarised view of other groups?

I do see what you're getting at though, if the assumption is that A+ is to be an activist movement, but then I wonder if there is any activist movement where all members agree 100% on what they should be doing?

Thank you for your reply.

There most certainly cannot be subsets of AtheismPlus, if AtheismPlus is intended to be seen a trustworthy movement. Which faction will other organizations be dealing with, under which banner? I don't see any organization in either skepticism, atheism or humanism that will allow one faction to collaborate with another organization, while another faction is allowed to denounce the same organization.

Naturally, members cannot be expected to agree 100% on all activities of the movement, nor should they, but the activities themselves must be consistent. No organization would want to work together with AtheismPlus, if they can expect AtheistPlus to denounce them the day after collaboration.

Your take on the answers, if they are to be taken as authoritative, would mean that AtheistPlus is born a toothless movement, with no clear goals or ways to achieve them. It would be more of a discussion forum, for the sake of discussion. That is certainly not the impression I get, from reading the blogs.

Toothless? Apply those same questions to atheism (nonplussed, so to speak). Who rules atheism? Who speaks for atheism? Who decides when someone is 'expelled'? Is atheism toothless?

What do you think this is except a loose grouping of people around basic principles? Some will be firebrands, some activists, some lurkers. Like any movement.

Thank you for your reply.

It is certainly my impression that AtheistPlus is intended to be something more than a loose grouping of people around basic principles. As I understand it, AtheistPlus is supposed to be the conglomeration of atheists, skeptics, humanists and feminists, who are not merely joining forces based on common ground, but also activist in nature.

I do not see any organization trying to present themselves as the guardians of atheism. Some atheist groups are activist in nature, others less so.

It is the activist nature of AtheistPlus that will require its members to rally around concrete, consistent goals, if those goals are to be achieved in society.

[Xanthë]

I see this thread is possibly going to devolve into a lot of confusion along the lines I predicted earlier. Please be clear:

AtheismPlus = this website domain

Atheism+ = social movement

So, I could well understand religious secular humanists — humanists who have religious beliefs, but also believe those religious beliefs are essentially private, and should not exert any influence or result in any privilege or benefit to the religious in secular society — being affiliated with a website like AtheismPlus by having a member account on the forums. It would not really make them members of the social movement, however since they aren’t atheists, and atheism+ is really a statement of a particular type of self-identification.

I suppose in some cases, there might be justifiable scepticism about whether someone calling themselves “atheist+” really is or not — in the same way that there would be ample scepticism if the notorious PUA (pick-up artist) “dating guru” and misogynist Roosh Valizadeh came out and labelled himself a feminist. (BlagHag recently featured a couple of threads on this toxic narcissist.) Likewise, not everyone calling themselves “atheist+” would possibly be viewed as “in the movement” — there’s a certain bit of “walking the walk” as well as “talking the talk” which I think people would tend to view as being important here.

[CFLarsen]

I see this thread is possibly going to devolve into a lot of confusion along the lines I predicted earlier. Please be clear:

AtheismPlus = this website domain

Atheism+ = social movement

So, I could well understand religious secular humanists — humanists who have religious beliefs, but also believe those religious beliefs are essentially private, and should not exert any influence or result in any privilege or benefit to the religious in secular society — being affiliated with a website like AtheismPlus by having a member account on the forums. It would not really make them members of the social movement, however since they aren’t atheists, and atheism+ is really a statement of a particular type of self-identification.

I suppose in some cases, there might be justifiable scepticism about whether someone calling themselves “atheist+” really is or not — in the same way that there would be ample scepticism if the notorious PUA (pick-up artist) “dating guru” and misogynist Roosh Valizadeh came out and labelled himself a feminist. (BlagHag recently featured a couple of threads on this toxic narcissist.) Likewise, not everyone calling themselves “atheist+” would possibly be viewed as “in the movement” — there’s a certain bit of “walking the walk” as well as “talking the talk” which I think people would tend to view as being important here.

Thank you for your reply.

AtheismPlus, as I understand it, is not merely a website, but the website under which the movement AtheistPlus will operate from. A movement that is not merely a label or a social movement, but one which seeks political influence.

I could be wrong, of course, and AtheistPlus could merely be a conglomeration of atheists, skeptics, humanists and feminists with individual members sharing only parts of the whole, but then, what would separate them from atheist groups, skeptics groups, humanist groups and feminist groups? What would be the point of AtheistPlus, if people can find everything in AtheistPlus elsewhere?

Something has to set AtheistPlus apart, and, from what I gather, it is the political activism and the need to combine atheism, skepticism, humanism and feminism. "Walk the walk", as you and others have put it.

[Ginny]

AtheismPlus, as I understand it, is not merely a website, but the website under which the movement AtheistPlus will operate from.

At present, the movement Atheism+ is a grassroots movement without a central organizing body or authority. Much like atheism itself, and other subsets (such as New Atheism.) The website is intended to be a convenient central location for discussing the interest areas atheists+ share.

I could be wrong, of course, and AtheistPlus could merely be a conglomeration of atheists, skeptics, humanists and feminists with individual members sharing only parts of the whole, but then, what would separate them from atheist groups, skeptics groups, humanist groups and feminist groups? What would be the point of AtheistPlus, if people can find everything in AtheistPlus elsewhere?

Something has to set AtheistPlus apart, and, from what I gather, it is the political activism and the need to combine atheism, skepticism, humanism and feminism. "Walk the walk", as you and others have put it.

I believe you've answered your own question. Also, if you don't see a point to atheism+, there's no need to participate in it. If you feel like your values and agenda are being adequately represented by other movements, that's fine and great. People got excited about the Atheist+ idea because a whole lot of us didn't feel like our values and agenda were being adequately represented by other movements, and we wanted to work with a movement where they were. Nobody's going to take away your cookies if you decide it's not your thing.

[Rupert]

What exactly are the points of disagreement between Atheism+ and other parts of the atheist movement?

[Aleph]

Shouldn't this be in either the main or educational forums?

[OrneryPest]

I'm eager to see what direction the Atheism+ movement develops into! I don't know that it necessarily has any points of disagreement.

[CFLarsen]

AtheismPlus, as I understand it, is not merely a website, but the website under which the movement AtheistPlus will operate from.

At present, the movement Atheism+ is a grassroots movement without a central organizing body or authority. Much like atheism itself, and other subsets (such as New Atheism.) The website is intended to be a convenient central location for discussing the interest areas atheists+ share.

I could be wrong, of course, and AtheistPlus could merely be a conglomeration of atheists, skeptics, humanists and feminists with individual members sharing only parts of the whole, but then, what would separate them from atheist groups, skeptics groups, humanist groups and feminist groups? What would be the point of AtheistPlus, if people can find everything in AtheistPlus elsewhere?

Something has to set AtheistPlus apart, and, from what I gather, it is the political activism and the need to combine atheism, skepticism, humanism and feminism. "Walk the walk", as you and others have put it.

I believe you've answered your own question. Also, if you don't see a point to atheism+, there's no need to participate in it. If you feel like your values and agenda are being adequately represented by other movements, that's fine and great. People got excited about the Atheist+ idea because a whole lot of us didn't feel like our values and agenda were being adequately represented by other movements, and we wanted to work with a movement where they were. Nobody's going to take away your cookies if you decide it's not your thing.

This is a quote from one of the founders of Atheism+, Richard Carrier:

...anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it (when given the chance), is probably not one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/

From the same blog post, a comment, also Richard Carrier:

The movement will evolve according to the independent decisions of its members. I can only tell you what I will do, and argue for what you and others should do.
...
So if Richard Dawkins repudiates the values of Atheism+, then I will not associate with him, and will exercise my liberty to argue no one else should.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/comment-page-1/#comment-21105

We are clearly not talking about a movement that will live and let live, but will actively launch boycotts of people, in order to hurt or perhaps destroy their careers, merely because they did not agree with the values of Atheism+.

This is not some anonymous person. This is one of the founders of this new movement, vowing to encourage boycotts of people outside the movement, for whatever reason, it certainly is not a question of merely having to live without Atheism+. It is very much about having to deal with what can only be described as harassment, online and in real life.

[Fuzzy Cthulhu]

I don't see how disassociation is considered to be harassment. I realize I'm speaking for myself here, but I have no intention in participating in the destruction of anyone. No-one has the right to the support of all atheists, simply because they're an atheist too- and yes, that cuts both ways.

[CFLarsen]

I don't see how disassociation is considered to be harassment. I realize I'm speaking for myself here, but I have no intention in participating in the destruction of anyone. No-one has the right to the support of all atheists, simply because they're an atheist too- and yes, that cuts both ways.

It is not disassociation, but boycott Richard Carrier is talking about.

[Lutzifer]

judging from the proposed pillars of that atheism+ thing, who do you think would be boycotted and in what context?

Because, for example, if a conference would not allow speakers who are actively against either humanism, scepticism or social justice issues (i.e. being racist, homophobic or misogynist), why shouldnt they?

edit: or do you think it would be good to excuse moral failures of people with something along the lines of "oh, he's alright, because he is an atheist, he couldnt have lied to / harrassed / killed / raped someone".

[Ginny]

Carrier has retracted the more antagonistic parts of his post, and other leading voices have also disavowed those parts also. I will return and post links when I'm back at my home computer (unless someone has beaten me to it.)

[maiforpeace]

Carrier has retracted the more antagonistic parts of his post, and other leading voices have also disavowed those parts also. I will return and post links when I'm back at my home computer (unless someone has beaten me to it.)

Yes, this blog of Carrier's appears to be the most seriously criticized and mocked on the subject of Atheism+. According to many, it also represents everything Atheism+ is about.