Talk:Atheism Plus
Wow, we (humans, not RW) love our lables, huh? So you can't just be an atheist, doing atheism, who happens to also be a feminst - it has to be Atheist +. sighs. --
GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 14:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right. So maybe this should be incorporated into the atheism article and ax this page? C®ackeЯ 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, I listened to PZ last night talk about this for over an hour. Comments were horrific cough MRAs/Libertarians cough. Let's see how this develops. ТyCurmudgeon 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can't people just leave words the fuck alone? They are already abused on minutely basis. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, well over using the words f**k and f*****g is just immature, and so is a toddler saying "No!". Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. ТyJFBAA 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- So this is an actual thing? I guess the New Coke just wasn't good enough. Also, obligatory, splitters! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's an actual proposal. And the write-up is less-than-good, as usual, so if anyone wants to understand what's it about, I suggest searching FtB for the term and then trying to read the posts in chronological order. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I might as well capitalize on the trend and start my own movement. I call it "Atheism ME." Its user-interface will be even worse than previous versions, but there will be a large profit margin on the merchandise. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's an actual proposal. And the write-up is less-than-good, as usual, so if anyone wants to understand what's it about, I suggest searching FtB for the term and then trying to read the posts in chronological order. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- So this is an actual thing? I guess the New Coke just wasn't good enough. Also, obligatory, splitters! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No. ТyJFBAA 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can't people just leave words the fuck alone? They are already abused on minutely basis. -- DasRationalpersone
- Nah, I listened to PZ last night talk about this for over an hour. Comments were horrific cough MRAs/Libertarians cough. Let's see how this develops. ТyCurmudgeon 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Good post on the contradictory nature of A+. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- A+ defines itself as inherently not full of assholes. I think Carrier already screwed that one up for them. This is shaping up to be gnu atheism redux. Good internet television, as David Gerard would say, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] logo
Looking at the last edit that's logo and name may indeed be unfortunate. That A+ looks like it's already in use.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bests me. It's an issue in which I'm somewhat interested at the moment and I certainly thought it was something useful to be made aware of.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, so an atheist movement largely formed because they feel Richard Dawkins is too cisgender, male, white and heterosexual to represent people, have chosen a logo that's already in use by Richard Dawkins. This gets better.
theist
14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)Um, no that isn't why they formed, [1] [2], [3]. ТyILAB 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- McCreight is pretty clear on her third-wave: "Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists." - there would be absolutely no need of a third-wave as described like that if it wasn't to distance yourself from the likes of Dawkins purely on the grounds of his race and gender.
gnostic
16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mmh, I was getting a more "distancing themselves from the MRAs" vibe. ТyILAB 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- But I'm finding "MRA" is getting thrown around too liberally in skeptic/atheist circles. I would just jump straight to "fucking idiots" to avoid any connotations of tarring people who have the audacity to raise any male-specific issues.
postate
16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- It seems a somewhat appropriate phrase to use when, as is usually the case, someone brings up a male-specific issue specifically to either derail a discussion, or tell people that they can't talk about a female-specific issue as a result of the male-specific one. Of course, "MRA" refers to a very specific brand of idiocy, so "troll" is definitely more appropriate.ChrisB (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Point. ТyILAB 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- But I'm finding "MRA" is getting thrown around too liberally in skeptic/atheist circles. I would just jump straight to "fucking idiots" to avoid any connotations of tarring people who have the audacity to raise any male-specific issues.
- Mmh, I was getting a more "distancing themselves from the MRAs" vibe. ТyILAB 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- McCreight is pretty clear on her third-wave: "Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists." - there would be absolutely no need of a third-wave as described like that if it wasn't to distance yourself from the likes of Dawkins purely on the grounds of his race and gender.
- (EC)Um, no that isn't why they formed, [1] [2], [3]. ТyILAB 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, so an atheist movement largely formed because they feel Richard Dawkins is too cisgender, male, white and heterosexual to represent people, have chosen a logo that's already in use by Richard Dawkins. This gets better.
- Bests me. It's an issue in which I'm somewhat interested at the moment and I certainly thought it was something useful to be made aware of.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- On the "feeding the trolls" issue, I don't think "plagiarism" is really the right word. Plenty of things innocently re-use ideas. You're going to call it A+, then the red-letter-A with a "+" sign is obvious... if you're an atheist charity then the red-letter-A with a cross (a la the Red Cross) also seems obvious. "Plagiarism" usually implies intent and knowingly ripping off work (except in an academic case where it's strict liability). I doubt this is the case.
pathetic
14:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- But it's still hardly "trolling", and "feeding the troll" is baffling. Which troll is being "fed" by this?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's tolling, but "plagiarism" is coming on a bit strong.
narchist
16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It's almost certainly accidental. They'd hardly deliberately choose something already in use by another atheist group if they were explicitly trying to create something new and different.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, two things: first of all, according to AgentofDoubt alot of the people involved with Atheism+ had previously worked with non-believer giving. Secondly, it wasn't just that the A and the + were together, they were also in almost identical fonts (I know its derived from a pre-existing atheism symbol, but still).--Mustex (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's less "to distance oneself from", than to say that you have a more diverse focus. You'll notice that Dawkins, when speaking about religion and not gender, is still praised on most of FTB, where A+ seems to be primarily coalescing. Keep in mind that Atheism+ is still basically a part of new atheism, just with slightly more specialized interests. As to the plagiarism claim, I'd put my money on either cryptomnesia, or coincidence. Nevertheless, the claim itself seems to be grasping at straws, even if true (unless of course the symbol is copyrighted).ChrisB (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, two things: first of all, according to AgentofDoubt alot of the people involved with Atheism+ had previously worked with non-believer giving. Secondly, it wasn't just that the A and the + were together, they were also in almost identical fonts (I know its derived from a pre-existing atheism symbol, but still).--Mustex (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It's almost certainly accidental. They'd hardly deliberately choose something already in use by another atheist group if they were explicitly trying to create something new and different.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's tolling, but "plagiarism" is coming on a bit strong.
- But it's still hardly "trolling", and "feeding the troll" is baffling. Which troll is being "fed" by this?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldnt care less what the logo is, but there seems to be at least 2 logos in use. On this page http://atheismplus.com/ it is a big red capital A with a blue plus whereas on http://atheismplus.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page there is the swirly blue a described in the page on rationalwiki. 92.227.228.148 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Did this thing die already?
What's up with them now? --85.76.5.180 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The forum is still going. 72.93.251.215 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral Point of View
"...the more egregious antics of that eminent YouTube jerk, TheAmazingAtheist". Come on now, really? Is this site even trying to be an encyclopedia anymore?— Unsigned, by: 61.117.188.35 / talk / contribs 05:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
[edit] "the more egregious antics of that eminent YouTube jerk, TheAmazingAtheist"
Is this a blog or an encyclopedia 128.189.116.140 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- No. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Misrepresenting the critics of Atheism+
I noticed a significant problem on this page, in that it attributes people like thunderf00t to being assholes simply because they oppose atheism+. I shouldn't have to point out that this is needlessly divisive and not represented by fact. It's not even in the least bit funny. The page constantly equates critics of atheism+ to anti-feminists, misogynists, or rape-supporters. The page fails to list the actual, viable complaints against the movement, and lacks any sort of rationality whatsoever in it's witch hunt. Need I remind you all that only sith deal in absolutes, so turning the argument into an "you either support atheism+ or you support rape" merely shows the irrationality of this page, not those opposed to the movement — Unsigned, by: Clarkej376 / talk / contribs 19:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I don't support Atheism+™. I also don't support my local philately club. I don't support rape, both on general principles and for personal reasons. I don't have a dog in any relevant races, so you won't catch me editing this article unless I see obvious wandalism. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
- Good job avoiding stereotypical phrases such as "needlessly divisive" and "witch hunt" (very funny – shouldn't that be "wizard hunt"?) or clichéd criticism such as the one above. Oh wait, you didn't. At least you didn't check ALL the boxes such as "What about teh menz?! Those shrill feminist harpies are so mean to us!!1" ... though some might sense an overtone of that in your complaint, too. Just because you don't identify with the MRA crowd doesn't mean you have checked your privilege and understand feminism and social justice. I have yet to see criticism of Atheism+ (even if the term is not in use anymore, the movement in practice remains) that isn't a tired old PRATT, derailment strategy or plain irrelevant (such as concern/tone trolling à la "if you called yourself egalists instead of feminists you would stop coming across as merely the mirror image of misogynists"). --84.151.172.34 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So you admit that there's no reason to label thunderf00t as an asshole other than that he disagrees with atheism+.— Unsigned, by: casus / talk / contribs
- Sure, there's his disagreement with Atheism+. And also
- His jumping into FTB with a contrarian viewpoint and a bad attitude after being invited
- His invading the privacy of the FTB email list (after he was booted, he found a way back in, and even shared some of the correspondence with others)
- His tirades against feminism and individuals like Anita Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson
- His falsing accusing some people of doxxing him
- And anything else mentioned in our article on the man. You'll be sure to find references and details. If you're interested in reading further criticisms of Thunderf00t, I'm sure Google can help you out with tha.t
- Note that I am not an anti-theist, and therefore not a supporter of Atheism+ or FreeThoughtBlogs, though I do find them preferable, to, say, TheAmazingAtheist or Richard Dawkins.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)