Talk:Atheism Plus/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

BoN yard[edit]

This smells like something made up for the sake of publicity. How many "supporters" do they have? --83.84.137.22 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideological ghetto dwellers that own large chunks of this "rational" wiki. You need sections on doxxing private info, threatening critics employment and DMCA as a censorship tool. Without that, you folks are just puppets.— Unsigned, by: 149.135.147.45 / talk / contribs
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--ZooGuard (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
hbidda-wha? ТyJFBAA 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
useless, or usefull the term, the concept is real, and has lots of "pre-followers" in places like FTB. However, there are quite a few of them "MENZ" who are running around FreeThought pissing and moaning about how it's taking over their MENZ space. largly, i suspect it is reactionary, and in 6 months or less no one will even remember the term was proposed.--Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Why ‘ghetto dwellers’? --Kyle Rybski (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

the event has already ended. (refresh) Alrighty, let's see.ТyJFBAA 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not try to think about The Event. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Original BoN: Well, in a sense, yes, because without publicity, it's hard to get people to understand the problem. Atheism covers very little ground, to be honest, which was one of the points I made when I started our Atheism FAQ. Atheism+ is essentially applying skepticism to prejudice. EVDebs (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like secular humanism to me. Then again, secular humanism sounds like liberal Christianity with the superstition and magic bits torn out, but that's a whole 'nother story. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That's somewhat true; secular humanism is a superset of A+. I think the main difference is that A+ is more explicitly skeptical of social claims and aims to be more proactive on such issues. EVDebs (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Or a failure to apply skepticism to it. Have you been a frequent reader of Freethought Blogs? --Kyle Rybski (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Have you stopped beating your wife? Seriously, is the best you can do a poorly veiled "what about the menz"? EVDebs (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Carrier gets carried away[edit]

A+'s most fervent supporter is already "not representative of A+." LMAO Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not representative of "all" atheism+ supporters, certainly. The difference, of course, is that he didn't get shouted down, called names, and nobody is trying to drive him out. For what it's worth, he seems to have tempered much of his overzealousness. I'm not too sure I'd call Carrier A+'s "most fervent supporter"; I'd personally go with PZ Myers there.ChrisB (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I"m really with this article. A+ makes no sense to me. Secular Humanists, who can be religious or not, but who don't bring it to the table, have been around "forever" (ok, she says 100 years). Why are we (as atheists) trying to turn atheism into some club, or philosophy or shared ideals? It's just a lack of a belief, and anything beyond is... well... I dn't know what. Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 03:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
As the article says, A+ is one answer to the "anything beyond [simple non-belief]" question. Beliefs have consequences, especially for a persons view of the world. A+, as it is presently coalescing, aggregates individuals who have come to social justice/progressive positions as a result of their atheism. A+ doesn't, and can't, speak for all atheists. It doesn't try to do so. Further, atheism as a "club, philosophy, or shared ideals" has been around for years. It's called "new atheism". A+ is just a different subset with a ton of overlap. Nothing more, nothing less.ChrisB (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thing is... it makes absolutely no sense to call it Atheism+. It's more like "skepticsm+" or even in many places "Feminism+". Once you read what it's supposedly about the whole "I don't believe in God" part is so trivial that you may as well drop it completely so you can open it up to progressive believers (which is a massive fuck-off-huge voting block if you want to give your movement some political clout) and liberal something-ers. It's New Atheism with a different name and maybe a little more tacked onto it, but the New Atheism brand is tainted by this impression that New Atheism is male dominated and therefore leads to rape in elevators. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, then how is this different from secular humanism. the secular part means religion is irrelevant, atheists largely think religion is irrelevant to their own lives, seems like what A+ is trying to do, has been done. Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Because, to take an analogy from theatre, everyone wants to be a production manager, not an ASM (or lead actor, not a chorus member, or artistic director, not assistant make-up artist, and so on). Also, I think this idea seriously cannot be overstated in the case of generating new "uniting" movements. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it funny that when trying to edit the article to encompass such criticism, I end up having it deleted. isthatmycow 07:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So shrill I think me ears are gonna bleed[edit]

They have forums. The ubiquitous hyperegulated phpBB echo chamber so beloved of Online Atheists. I AM OFFENDED BY EVERYTHING! --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 23:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Shrill"? Really? EVDebs (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, really. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 01:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You know that terms like "shrill" are exactly why this group started, right? Having said that (and remembering I don't even get the point of A+) what is shrill about it? seriously. I've glaced at several of the forums, they are exactly what one expects. a bunch of people talking about philo/atheism/humanism and feminism. and?--Green mowse.pngGodotrien ne marcherait 01:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I mean by "shrill", Godot. Your opening line is an excellent example. That thin-skinned "assistant-queer-officer-of-the-student-union" whiny overall tone of such places. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 01:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If that's how you perceive people having the temerity to tell you to check your privilege, you may want to find some other wiki to edit at. Misogyny is woo, the only way to fight it is to talk about it, and if you can't face that, you're not rational. EVDebs (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I see an issue with talking about privilege at a "rational" site. It may be useful in a sense of dealing with some social injustices, but it is fallacious when used in a rational discussion. Arguments stand and fall on their own merit. Using privilege to shut down a conversation, as I have seen many times, is discounting an argument due to the traits of the arguer. It is ad hominem. If the argument is wrong, then show it to be wrong, but even people we don't like can have good points. 71.225.144.27 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not fallacious. Privilege is a thing which exists, which is observed on a daily basis by those in our society that lack it, and those that have it who bother to tune into it. If you ignore its existence, you are essentially saying that the things that make it difficult in our society for people who aren't white, Christian males -- anything from overt hatred to unconscious slights that don't happen to white, Christian males -- doesn't happen. Saying privilege doesn't exist is like saying evolution doesn't exist; just because you've never observed it doesn't mean it's not part of reality. More importantly, just because you (and a gazillion other white male skeptics) personally are uncomfortable with the concept does not make it a fallacy. More importantly, just because you don't want to talk about it doesn't mean the person who brings it up is trying to shut down discussion. EVDebs (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the only time "shrill" doesn't mean "uppity bitchez saying something that I don't want to talk about" is when it refers to noisy inanimate objects or birds. EVDebs (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reading material for next time I have trouble sleeping. Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 13:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why[edit]

does every article involving atheism and feminism get transformed into a battlefield, where the article itself is the biggest victim? Why is everyone on RW so frustrated about the subjects? -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Every article about both atheism and feminism or every article about atheism and every article about feminism? :)
Answer to question 1: because there's currently a bit of a rift in the Anglophone atheist/sceptical movement about feminism, with several conflicts going on. It tends to leak into RW.
As for question 2, I think frustrated may not be the word you are looking for. In all cases, your question is unclear.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Background is this, basically. The argument is between those who think that feminists are out to make men miserable and those who think that the atheist/skeptical community doesn't pay enough attention to various societal issues; in this particular case, since the shitstorm started over feminism, that's the current focus. The problem comes from the fact that the former are by all indications very unwilling to apply a skeptical eye to their own beliefs about gender relations and somehow managed to interpret "don't be creepy in an elevator" to "feminists don't want us to fuck". Since a lot of members of the skeptical community are geeks, and geeks have a tendency to circle the wagons when they perceive a threat (largely because a lot of geeks grew up as outcasts), the backlash was particularly brutal against female skeptics. While RW doesn't explicitly endorse Atheism+ (I think that would be too much of a cat-herding project, and not all of us are atheists anyway), we certainly endorse turning a skeptical lens on prejudice and fixed belief, and that includes misogyny and racism. EVDebs (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
[EC] Why does every article involving atheism and feminism get transformed into a battlefield, where the article itself is the biggest victim? Because of confirmation bias, maybe? Check the articles in category:atheism and category:feminism; most of them aren't a battleground. In this case, the conflict seems to be a revert war over edits by one inexperienced user who hasn't entered a discussion about his/her changes. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfair Removal and Vandalism:[edit]

Okay, here's the thing. I am neutral (but skeptical) of the Atheism Plus movement. The reason why I am skeptcal is because of the principles and the application of said movement that this minority, marginalised group invokes. In doing so, I posted the following information as an anonymous user:

The movement has attracted dissenting opinion and valid criticism from secular humanists, skeptics, atheists, male rights activists, and feminists alike. In response to PZ Myers, Amplified Atheist! wrote an article in their blog titled, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". The authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blogs on the allegations that Secular Humanism was neither skeptic/atheistic, and had "religious trappings". Quoting from the site, http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism, the authors' not only addressed the logical fallacy stipulated by Free Thought Blogs, their provided rebuttal dictates secular humanism as follows:

"Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. Defining ‘Humanism’ the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

  • trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
  • makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
  • believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same." [Perseus & Io. [1]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.][Harold J. Blackham. [2]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.]

On top of this rebuttal, Perseus and Io expressed their deepest concerns and adovcated that If anyone was considering identifying as part of the A+ movement, they urged individuals to instead join and support the British Humanists (or location equivalent), and align one's personal moral philosophy with a movement that has credibility, needs support and funding, and covers everything that A+ wants to be plus a whole lot more. [Perseus & Io. [3]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.]

Massimo Pigliucci, another well known internet skeptic, criticised the movement with regards to the Atheism Plus (A+) community trying to add their philosophies to Atheism. Pigliucci's second point stated skepticism for the simple reason that atheism is not a philosophy, and urges that anyone involved in the movement and the community in general should stop pretending that it is.[Massimo Pigliucci. [4]. "Rationally Speaking. 2012 August 29.] Basic 101 knowledge states that, in the broad term, atheism is a position that states the lack of belief in Gods/God/Supernatural Deities. All skeptics of the atheism plus movement have emphasised heavily on the full stop after that statement.[Perseus & Io. [5]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.] Anything beyond that statement is subjected to the individual or group, and has nothing to do with atheism.

This view was also substantiated and shared by many other outside prominent blogs, some of which also have noted the lengths of controversy Free Thought Blog authors and moderators were invoking on anyone (be it a random troll or an actual member with a valid

criticism/concern/opinion) to the extent to dampen public opinion on this new movement. A blog archive post about these blog reactions and concerns of the rising controversies can be found on the article provided by Atheist Revolution. [vjack. [6]. Atheist Revolution. 2012 August 24.]

This information was fixed per suggestion of user, ZooGuard (talk), whom removed my post prior on the following principles:

  • Suspicion that I was one of the three authors of said article
  • Reproducing the article

So I registered, addressed this rightful critcism and no longer had any issues with the community in regards to providing a fair and balanced argument in the page. However, despite reaching a mutual agreement with this user, my post gets removed again and is replaced with this:

The movement has engendered fierce (and usually unhinged) opposition from groups that see it as a feminist incursion on atheism, especially misogynist groups like the Men's Rights movement and people who don't understand the concept of privilege. The latter are generally not misogynist per se, but see other forms of skepticism as more important than what they perceive as a social issue; the latter pretty much by definition take offense of any support of women's issues and have been the source of (among other things) misrepresenting the goals of A+ as being merely repackaged (straw) feminism alongside threats of rape and violence against A+ advocates.

This was submitted by the user who removed my work, EVDebs (talk). Having had my work removed to the point that I had to save my work every time it got removed, I decided to remove this contribution and speak plainly to the involved party. My conversation with this user went as follows:

Would you lot please STOP removing content that I post up with citation in regards to the reaction to Atheism Plus? Why is it my stuff with citations gets removed, and it gets replaced with comments/information that resorts to ad hominems to such critics, AND replaced with stuff that ADVOCATES the movement that the opposition is against? Ronin Zanoh (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My post to him was met as follows:

Uh, no, I will not. Most of it misrepresents the aims of Atheism+, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's taken exception with it, and if you can't be mature enough to seek consensus on disputed content on the talk page, you don't belong here. Furthermore, you may have noticed that although we don't explicitly endorse A+, RationalWiki definitely supports its aim of questioning prejudice the same way any other woo is questioned. Take it to the talk page or get lost.

My rebuttal to him was as follows: //:Uh, no, I will not. Most of it misrepresents the aims of Atheism+\\ No it doesn't. It actually criticises the PRINCIPLES and ALLEGATIONS made by the group, not the aims of the group. Especially when I rightfully posted the criticism in regards to the following: Adding principles to a concept that doesn't condone or condemn the ideologies or aims of the philosophy based within that group, the devisive nature based on the gorup's key members by alienating anyone with the label or episteme of an Atheist, and above all things a humanist perspective against the irrational arguments made by the group in regards to Secular Humanism having "religious trappings".

//I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's taken exception with it,\\ Yes, you are the only one with this "taken exception" because it doesn't fit your red herring. You removed my work (vandlism right there), my cited work with your spiel of misinformed, and totally off base remark about Male Rights Activists and "priviledged" people when I posted none of that, and posted a Secular Humanist perspective and OTHER various crtics INCLUDING the male rights activists. So why should My work be vandalised whilst yours doesn't? It makes no rational sense.

// and if you can't be mature enough to seek consensus on disputed content on the talk page, you don't belong here.\\ The same goes for you, you do not belong here if you think you can post whatever you like without citing sources. I can remove your post on the grounds that it is uncited, full of misinformation and invoking red herrings JUST because you didn't agree with my post. I have removed your contribution, but instead of posting mine in its place, I am mature enough to take this to the talk page. So I would much appreciate that you put your ego aside, and engage in a rational conversation or take your OWN advice. -- Ronin Zanoh(talk) 03:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Erm, pardon my ignorance, Seth Peck, but was there something I did wrong in regards to my contribution? ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
(EC) No footnotes on talk pages please. Can you also not put other people's signatures in your own post, as it makes a discussion hard to follow. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I am indeed new to format on this page, and my inexperience shows. I am willing to work with the community as best as I can so I shall do as per instruction. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 04:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I would start be looking at this from a WP:WP:UNDUE perspective. That is a lot of real estate devoted to people I am not really sure why we care about what they say relative to other people that disagree. While the perspective very well might belong in the article, a summary w/ links is likely good enough. Particularly if we can balance it out with some response articles from the A+ side. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By all means, I welcome a balanced discussion from the A+ side, regardless of my subjective view to their principles and ideals. I just think removing my post entirely (rather than making minor changes to make a summary) is not doing a good service to anyone in regard of relaying information to all rational beings. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 04:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
When material is in dispute we tend to favor the status quo on the article page till after discussion has been had. Bringing the material to the talk page, as you have done, is usually the best approach. If you could come up with a one paragraph summary of the above with relevant links I could support its inclusion, though I hope others with more specific knowledge on this will discuss this with us. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I shall indeed work on making that post of mine a small one paragraph with the required links to back my points. I invoke no ill will towards anyone, and I am sure others here are not giving ill will towards me. I have university to attend to for now, but when I come back I shall provide the information as per request. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 04:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


Revised Content:

The movement has attracted dissenting opinion and valid criticism from secular humanists, skeptics, atheists, male rights activists, and feminists alike. In response to PZ Myers, Amplified Atheist! wrote an article in their blog titled, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". Quoting from the site, http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism, the authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blogs on the allegations that Secular Humanism was neither skeptic/atheistic, and had "religious trappings" as well as critcise the practicality of the movement with regards to the aims and principles of Secular Humanism. [Perseus & Io. [7]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.][Harold J. Blackham. [8]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.] 'Massimo Pigliucci, another well known internet skeptic, criticised the movement with regards to the Atheism Plus (A+) community trying to add their philosophies to [[Atheism], stating that the community should not try and treat the stance as a philosophy.[9]. 'Rationally Speaking'. 2012 August 29.] These views were also substantiated and shared by many other outside prominent blogs, some of which also have noted the lengths of controversy Free Thought Blog authors and moderators were invoking on anyone (be it a random troll or an actual member with a valid criticism/concern/opinion) to the extent to dampen public opinion on this new movement. A blog archive post about these blog reactions and concerns of the rising controversies can be found on the article provided by Atheist Revolution. [vjack. [10]. Atheist Revolution. 2012 August 24.]

Please let me know if this is better, and what (if any applicable) changes should be made. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 07:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, for starters, asserting the criticism is "valid" is not justified, so that word needs to go. Second, this still seems like a case of throwing anything you can think of at the wall to see if it will stick. Third, your entire approach sounds very #FTBullies, which is a very, very childish way of looking at things. On the whole, you're quoting a lot of opinions without really discussing them, and you're doing it in a very Gish-gallopy way. Try a little more analysis and a little less argumentum ad baculum and let's see what you come up with; I need to reiterate that a lot of people who oppose A+ are doing it just because of a knee-jerk reaction, and others are doing it because they think women are inferior and/or evil. Any reasonable argument against has to be free of those two positions (since they're pretty much the root of the creation of A+ to begin with). EVDebs (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
EvDebs, do you know of any good response blogs these posts? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Not offhand, but that's a lot of citations to look up. I think it's best to look mainly at what the proponents say about themselves; those are on places like FTB, Skepchick, and other allied but not necessarily A+ blogs like Pandagon. Honestly, I think the fundamental problem A+ has is that a lot of people aren't willing to be skeptical about their own politics. There are skeptical political writers -- Matt Taibbi, Charlie Pierce, Amanda Marcotte come to mind -- but they don't have very much traction in the skeptical community, and I suspect the fact that a lot of them are explicitly left-wing turns off the libertarian contingent of the community. You wind up in a situation where nearly all the pro-social justice arguments come from people that a large swath of the community considers suspect for no very good reason except that they imagine a boundary that isn't there between science and society. As I've said elsewhere, I think this is a cultural blind spot inherent not in skepticism per se, but in the people who make up the community. EVDebs (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first I am blocked, now I am unblocked. Alright then, I shall use my unblock as a grounds for contesting the claims made by EVDebs against my post starting with his first point:
  • Well, for starters, asserting the criticism is "valid" is not justified, so that word needs to go. Second, this still seems like a case of throwing anything you can think of at the wall to see if it will stick.
What point in the article was I addressing? It was this one (of which I invoke everyone's attention to:
  • According to PZ Myers, Atheism Plus represents an attempt at a new secular humanism without appropriating the religious trappings of many secular humanist groups.[5]
The response I made was criticism against this allegation provided by the article I made which states thusly:
In response to PZ Myers, Amplified Atheist! wrote an article in their blog titled, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". The authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blogs on the allegations that Secular Humanism was neither skeptic/atheistic, and had "religious trappings". Quoting from the site, http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism, the authors' not only addressed the logical fallacy stipulated by Free Thought Blogs, their provided rebuttal dictates secular humanism as follows:
  • *insert Secular Humanism statement here*
I even cited my sources of this criticism, and I did at first answer it in depth only for it to be removed on the grounds that it was reproducing the article. YOU now allege it as "link spamming". I don't know what plane of reality you live in, but a cited source that addresses an allegation made by Mr. Myers is valid criticism. And I didn't even invoke what you allege by "misogynisits" or "priviliged" persons making a "useless point". Answer me this: where was your source for this?
  • The movement has engendered fierce (and usually unhinged) opposition from groups that see it as a feminist incursion on atheism, especially misogynist groups like the Men's Rights movement and people who don't understand the concept of privilege. The latter are generally not misogynist per se, but see other forms of skepticism as more important than what they perceive as a social issue; the latter pretty much by definition take offense of any support of women's issues and have been the source of (among other things) misrepresenting the goals of A+ as being merely repackaged (straw) feminism alongside threats of rape and violence against A+ advocates.


And I don't state this blindly, you invoked your own fallacy on the third point you made against me:
  • Third, your entire approach sounds very #FTBullies, which is a very, very childish way of looking at things. On the whole, you're quoting a lot of opinions without really discussing them, and you're doing it in a very Gish-gallopy way. Try a little more analysis and a little less argumentum ad baculum and let's see what you come up with; I need to reiterate that a lot of people who oppose A+ are doing it just because of a knee-jerk reaction, and others are doing it because they think women are inferior and/or evil. Any reasonable argument against has to be free of those two positions (since they're pretty much the root of the creation of A+ to begin with). EVDebs (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well for a "knee jerk reaction", you most certainly provided why I have constantly removed your paragraph. You are missing the point addressed in my paragraph against the principle and allegations made by FTB, and I handled it in a rational, mature manner by stating valid criticism of those who addressed said allegations. Oh and for the record, Mr.EvDebs: blocking me for removing your post on valid contention is tantamount to rude and bullying. You even provide evidence against you by stating something like this to a rational position against you:
  • "I'm rubber you're glue" is not an argument. Like I said. Take it to the talk page for the article or get lost. Either way, stop polluting my talk page.
Nice, I'm not the one using forceful coercion in a rational contention and discussion with your points as well as mine. ~Ronin Zanoh(talk) 9:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You act as if your opinion is somehow privileged to the point where you don't have to play well with others. I told you at least twice to cool it and take it to the talk page and you still insisted on adding your content, and failing that, blanking what you didn't agree with. If I was going to block you for disagreeing, I'd have done it a lot sooner. You did read the reason I blocked you, right? "Edit warring and trying to pass off linkspam as an argument." That is why I blocked you, no more, no less. EVDebs (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
//You act as if your opinion is somehow privileged to the point where you don't have to play well with others.\\
Never ONCE did I say your opinion SHOULDN'T be on there. NEVER once did I threaten you or harboured any ill will towards you. You clearly have done that with me.
You've acted as if what you have to say is self-evidently true, and that because it's self-evidently true, you have no need to seek consensus if someone argues the point. This isn't about my opinion (or, really, yours for that matter; that's the discussion we're supposed to be having, not this one); this is about your posting behavior. EVDebs (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
//I told you at least twice to cool it and take it to the talk page and you still insisted on adding your content, and failing that, blanking what you didn't agree with.\\
For that, I sincerely apologise, but at the same time, the SAME could be said for you. You blanked my content and instead of moving it to the talk page and directing my attention to the talk page (which I had to find the hard way, mind you), you place your spiel without any cited source. Seriously, what gives? You're a Sysop for crying out loud. Your post still stands on the page, uncited.
You could, you know, read the edit summary and move the content yourself. Furthermore, as I said, your entire argument consists of citations with no analysis. See below.
//If I was going to block you for disagreeing, I'd have done it a lot sooner. You did read the reason I blocked you, right? "Edit warring and trying to pass off linkspam as an argument." That is why I blocked you, no more, no less. \\
I WASN'T link spamming nor had the intention. I was addressing an allegation made by the FTB about Secular Humanism whilst adding other points up for contention. My first two links or references substantiate that criticism against it. I am perfectly alright with working together to make an argument that is agreeable between us in regards to my content, but this unfair practice against my contribution and then placing free pass to YOUR own work, will not fly. Can we agree on this, and work together? I accept full responsibility for the warring part, I am still new at this, but I seriously have contention with your latest paragraph. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 9:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether you want to call it linkspam or not, that's what it was. If you'd like me to be more formal about it, it's an argument from popularity using linkspam as the method. There are a lot of opinions linked there, but that's all they are -- opinions. As for uncited sources... well, I could if I needed to, but I'm pretty sure the rape threats and harrassment received by people like Rebecca Watson and Jen McCreight are public record, as are the sources of those threats, as you probably should already know. At the end of the day, citations aren't a substitute for effective writing. If you want to debate the point of whether Atheism+ is a good thing or a bad thing, you can do it here, or you can do it on an essay page. However, there are objective facts here that need to be covered -- the willful misinterpretation of terms like "feminism" or the aim of the movement, for example, or the origins of the various oppositions, or the varied opinions of the role of social issues in skepticism. You are attempting to do both and doing a rather sloppy and hamhanded job of it. EVDebs (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I will not use that fallacy again, but I think you are doing my post a disservice when my first point addresses a claim made on that page (which I will address as a revision for you and I to go over it and add or subtract what need be)
  • //As for uncited sources... well, I could if I needed to, but I'm pretty sure the rape threats and harrassment received by people like Rebecca Watson and Jen McCreight are public record, as are the sources of those threats, as you probably should already know.\\
Even it is is public knowledge it still requires citation of some sort (the same contention you gave me). I am actually arguing the Humanistic perspective (which you keep removing), and on top of that I haven't started mentioning the controversies on how FTB is treating its own members when they have a rational position against them. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


Very well, let's start with the basic point of my contention:

Revision 0.2:


The movement has attracted dissenting opinion and criticism from Humanists, as evidenced by the article, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". Quoting from the British Humanist Association, the authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blog authors Jen McCreight and PZ Myers on the allegation that Humanism, on its own grounds, was not exclusively skeptic/atheistic, and its organisations had "religious trappings". Their response was argued out by the following three key points that Humanists adhere to:

  • Trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
  • Makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
  • Believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

[Harold J. Blackham. [11]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.] While it is true that there are religious institutions that share humanistic principles, Humanism is a secular philosophy and principle derived from the stance of Atheism. The fact that Free Thought Blogs invoked logical fallacies on these grounds, led these humanist authors to challenge the principles on which Atheism Plus was trying to establish itself on. [Perseus & Io. [12]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.]


There. Is that better? ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 9:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's better, but saying that FTB was trying to discredit secular humanism in any meaningful way is utterly wrong; some FTB writers have been trying to draw a distinction between secular humanism and A+, but I don't think anyone from the A+ circle is anti-secular humanist for the simple reason that A+ is, essentially, secular humanism with a more proactive skeptical component and an emphasis on social justice. The difference is mainly one of focus. Anyone with other opinions? EVDebs (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from, and I revoke my statement about the discredit attempt. However, wouldn't you agree that by trying to make such distinction, they have unintentionally (or intentionally) invoked logical fallacies which my point had addressed? This still does not also address the author's primary concerns, "What does Atheism have anything to do with Social Justice/Progression and why not align oneself as a Humanist advocating social progression?" It sounds to me, and any a rational mind, that there is no difference in principle, more rather the focus of the A+ group has created a "us vs them" stance that is more inclusive to those that share their views, but at the same time is imposing upon a stance under the context of philosophy. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 10:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Because they believe that these issues need special attention right now. A+ is basically a caucus (or tendency, if you prefer the far-left terminology) within the atheist/skeptical community that focuses explicitly on these issues because of the perception that a lot of people in the community want to avoid the matter (and the societal power balances that caused it) entirely. Actually, now that I think about it, the single most important distinguishing characteristic of A+ is that it's focused specifically on issues internal to the community -- in other words, yes, these issues need to be addressed on all levels, but we have to clean our own house at the same time, and (as I've been saying all along) make sure we're focusing our skepticism on our own beliefs as well as others. EVDebs (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Because they believe that these issues need special attention right now. A+ is basically a caucus (or tendency, if you prefer the far-left terminology) within the atheist/skeptical community that focuses explicitly on these issues because of the perception that a lot of people in the community want to avoid the matter (and the societal power balances that caused it) entirely.
But you do realise that this movement is pretty much invoking humanistic principle, and is humanist-centred in aim, correct? If so what does that have to do with the position that simply states a lack of belief? Humanists have argued (like myself) that our ideals and views does not make us any less Atheistic to the concept of the supernatural.
  • Actually, now that I think about it, the single most important distinguishing characteristic of A+ is that it's focused specifically on issues internal to the community -- in other words, yes, these issues need to be addressed on all levels, but we have to clean our own house at the same time, and (as I've been saying all along) make sure we're focusing our skepticism on our own beliefs as well as others.
But at what cost? The group unintentionally invoked their view/beliefs unto a concept that doesn't condemn or condone said beliefs. On top of that, they alienate any position that doesn't agree with their ideal views (such as feminism's "Patriarchy Theory", principles on distinction and application, etc.). It also doesn't help their movement when they resort to attacking anyone with any concerns and criticism against it (like for example Humanists). The point of a skeptic movement was simply to advocate secular reasoning against the claims made by religion. To try and add more ideologies or point of views onto a unified goal, then hinders the movement all together.

Nevertheless, my point of contention has now been revised for a second time. If this is acceptable, can this be posted on the page? ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 9:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Two people does not a consensus make. I would like to see other peoples' input. As for patriarchy theory in particular, would you please explain why that is an irrational belief? And actually cite some of these attacks, and explain why they're more than just disagreements? A big part of the argument here is that these things exist, and the skeptical community has avoided them. Now, it's my contention that this is because a lot of these issues exist in a world that's largely invisible to straight white males, and it takes a real effort for us to see what other people experience on a daily basis (see privilege). If this is in fact the case (and it is -- just ask anyone who isn't a straight white male, I have), then why are skeptics ignoring or denying them? EVDebs (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Two people does not a consensus make. I would like to see other peoples' input.
Very well, I shall adhere to this point of view and let others state their input as follows. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

discussing patriarchy, perceptions, etc...[edit]

On the patriarchy theory: It is irrational when used in context to the core principles in secular society. It's not a non-issue, by any stretch of the word (because it does happen in rare cases), but it is overplayed, and over used; usually by people with motives. The reason I state this is because patriarchy theory mostly applies to governments/social constructs that are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development (aka Biblical/Religious Patriarchy evident in Theocracies). A good example of Patriarchy Theory in action is women being forbidden to drive in Saudi Arabia. [ Andy Bloxham. [13]. 'The Telegraph'. 02 December 2011]. The reason? Because they are women. That's it. It is an outright, promotional hatred of women. Now compared to this, if any a rational mind claims random troll comments and verbal/email threats as rampant misogyny or patriarchy, then I argue, by principle, that males being asked to call themselves "potential rapists" (source: [14]) to make another individual feel secure is an insult to an individual and borderline misandry. I seriously think that most individuals (be it female or male), can not fathom how "privileged" they are living in secular countries and not countries like Saudi Arabia. This is because, in secular society laws, based on logic, reason, and rationality, have no gender bias in mind. Rather, the focus of laws is to empower the individual and a multi-cultural society. It's not perfect-nothing ever is- but compared to most of the countries in the world, women have it far easier in secular societies than they do in non-secular societies.
  • Except that just because it's less of a problem here than it is in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean it's not a problem. Yes, relatively speaking, Westerners are more privileged (in the sense of being able to live their lives without interference), but that doesn't mean privilege (in the sense of society favoring men over women, white over brown, straight over gay, etc.) That's the fundamental error Richard Dawkins made over Elevatorgate (and yes, privilege is being used in two different senses here -- please try to keep them straight). That's why the Three Stooges method of health care doesn't work -- breaking your foot with a sledgehammer doesn't make the headache go away. In addition, laws and rationality may have no gender bias in mind, but they're both used by people, frequently imperfectly, and that's the crux of the whole A+ matter. You can't take human behavior out of the equation. EVDebs (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it's not a non-issue, but in context of what is being told, it is overused and is over exaggerated by people with motive. It isn't misogyny because as you pointed out of my point, none of our secular laws have a gender bias (ruling out Patriarchy Theory and all that encompass it) so it is irrational to use patriarchy theory in that context. As for the Richard Dawkins assertion, what he said was indeed wrong, but given the context that his was a response to Rebecca Watson and the feud going on within, her constant use of misogyny in the wrong way and context led him to be unemphatic and skeptical to the claim Watson asserted. Empathy is a two way street just like tolerance is. If Rebecca Watson or anyone involved in elevator gate wants to treat it like a black and white issue, then by philosophical standards, they are three times removed from the ideal of empathy and reason. The grey issue that anyone can actually rationalise is: What the man did, wasn't wrong (unless asking for coffee is considered a Male Chauvinistic crime these days), but it was at the wrong place, and the wrong time. The fact is being used as an argument for the entire male gender and sex is a fallacy known as "Guilt by Association" (which is what the feminist movement in the A+ community is doing), and that is just as wrong as saying "Women, don't be emotional".User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Epic fail there. First off, what the man did? Wrong time, wrong place = wrong action. Once again, context is everything, and Watson saying "don't do that, guys" was a completely reasonable request, and not an attack on all men. Neither is any part of Atheism+ an attack on all men. Second, I have no idea how your logic is supposed to work regarding laws vs. reality. It certainly doesn't reflect the real world in any comprehensible way. Watson wasn't making it a black and white issue from the very beginning, and it's both staggeringly dishonest and incredibly childish to claim otherwise. And yes, I am accusing a large quantity of the skeptical community of being dishonest and childish, including, apparently, you. EVDebs (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
//Wow. Epic fail ...And yes, I am accusing a large quantity of the skeptical community of being dishonest and childish, including, apparently, you.\\
  • Okay first off, stop accusing people for being childish and then making childish statements like "Epic Fail".
  • SECONDLY, you made a claim that RW was not referring to all men when she said, guys. Evidence of elevatorgate, and her actions from then on suggest otherwise (common knowledge as you have seen).
  • THIRDLY, you are doing the exact same thing non "A+ers" have pointed out time and time again. Now when I just made a statement that happened to target a gender saying "Women, don't be emotional" (A stereotype that I do not condone), you took offence to that. Now why can you not fathom the rational implication by reacting the same way when the way Rebecca Watson worded it implied the entire male gender? Then you might see the other side's contention with your movement. However, you are by definition emotionally attached to the cause, and as a result it is blinding your view.
  • Fourthly: Wrong time, wrong place does indeed equal wrong action, but that does not mean it is also exclusively a WRONG PERSON, which you make it sound like it is. Which is why Rebecca Watson and any who advocate feminism needs to understand that there are clear distinctions between wrong action, male chauvinism (which you haven't contested with), and misogyny enforced by patriarchy theory. Which I point down below. User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Now objectively stating human behaviour, on the other hand: One could argue that there is indeed Male chauvinism/sexism present (albeit rare or commonplace provided evidence is granted). We do not have laws barring women from equal opportunities and if there is a sort of discrimination, it is the result of isolated male chauvinism/sexism, and not really misogyny which is outward, promotional hatred of the entire women populace (which is a popular word with the A+ movement when someone doesn't agree 100% with their principles). Lately, the people who are arguing this, Rebecca Watson et. all, I do not think understand the difference. And the fact these trollish comments are towards these individuals mostly, leads one to believe these are isolated cases by those involved and not the general populace. It also doesn't help their position that one can get "offended" by even rational critcism against their arguments (Stef Mcgraw et. all) User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


  • Regarding "potential rapist": it seems to me that nearly everyone objecting to the term is failing to understand that it's not a literal character judgement. It's a statement of perception that describes day-to-day life for a lot, probably most, women; in other words, treating strange men as a potential danger until proven otherwise is a necessary survival mechanism. If there's one thing that people should have learned from this whole kerfuffle, it's that women don't have the luxury of trusting everyone by default as most men (at least white ones) do. I learned this the hard way back in college, and although the woman who accused me of it eventually became friendly with me, that was because I backed off when she told me to. (And I still have problems with this because I have trouble with social cues.) The fact that men are being made aware of the "potential rapist" thing is so that men can understand what women have to live with. (That, incidentally, is also why creep shaming is a pile of horseshit -- if a woman thinks you're creepy, it doesn't really matter why. Just walk away.) EVDebs (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the argument that "potential rapist" is a survival mechanism for women, I must pose a rhetorical witty question, If "potential rapist" is a survival mechanism for woman, and that is to be treated as outwardly acceptable, why should malice be given to a male gender with the train of thought (either inwardly or outwardly) that each woman is "a potential "feminazi" or "femistasi" until proven otherwise" as a survival mechanic? Both make no rational sense at all. Both have the mentality it is "guilty until proven innocent". While we can say it is perfectly acceptable to think those things as they are entitled to it, to declare it as an outward assertion is another thing entirely. In an objective sense, no rational mind would agree sacrificing their rights or dignity to be treated as an individual on one's own merits and actions (Queer Theory/Gender Theory) User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not explaining this again. If you actually took the effort to understand what I wrote instead of mentally copy-pasting whatever words stuck out, you'd know the difference. EVDebs (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
And I refute you by my last statement: In an objective sense, no rational mind would agree sacrificing their rights or dignity to be treated as an individual on one's own merits and actions (Queer Theory/Gender Theory). If a woman finds you to be creepy, your action of walking away shows your intention, regardless of what they intrinsically think. but to claim that as a "safety measure", men should appease by labeling themselves as potential rapists, is sacrificing their individual right. User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


With the case of the attacks: Rebecca Watson, or any of the feminists advocating Atheism Plus, have demonstrated how they can make themselves victims, especially at the expense of other people (controversial and not) that apply skepticism and criticism to their own movement. From FTB's own blogosphere, this is apparently the case [15]. By the link I provided, a user named Anna Johnstone, a supporter of the movement, expressed legitimate concern over the intentional practice of their first project, A+ scribes. Her concern: Asking permission from the creators of the content to be transcribed by the A+ Scribe project. Her concerns were not answered in the way she was hoping (a rational productive manner), and she was being verbally antagonized with assumptions by other member and abused with labels such as "Ableist". It also didn't help their case that Greta Christina, one of A+'s leaders/officers/*insert whatever title of command here* decided to join in on this bashing with a threat of forced coercion with a ban. This hostile environment lead Anna to quit her support for said movement (and she was a female user, a socialist feminist).
  • I found the answer to be quite straightforward actually. Anna did go a bit over the edge and jumped to a few conclusions that weren't warranted, and regarding "ableist", assuming we are talking about free, publicly available content, I'm not sure I would have phrased it that way but it does describe the result (the point of A+scribes is accessibility, after all). At any rate, it's clear things got a bit heated, Anna jumped to several unwarranted conclusions (particularly around copyright issues) and completely missed the point about accessibility, and Greta did apologize for calling Anna a troll, AND the A+scribe site did make a change to the code of conduct to clarify that it was only for free, publicly available material. I would also note that a lot of people (including a couple of actual trolls on the thread) have it in for A+ in general, and are likely to put anything associated with the movement in a "A+ can do no right" basket. Please do not be doing that yourself; try to be objective about it. EVDebs (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
//I would also note that a lot of people (including a couple of actual trolls on the thread) have it in for A+ in general, and are likely to put anything associated with the movement in a "A+ can do no right" basket. Please do not be doing that yourself; try to be objective about it.\\ Before I do start, let's make one thing clear. I don't have any stake against A+ (as of yet), but it appears to me that you are the one sounding a bit emotionally invested in the A+ movement. This investment leads me to assume you are preventing me from releasing content that provides an equal, opposing view to the article in question. My humanist argument, which you no longer contend, has yet to be given the go ahead to post on there. What we are currently discussing is the controversies now. which no longer have anything to do with my original Humanist argument. With that said let me provide a rebuttal:
Well, that's because I consider myself A+. Like I said, RW isn't A+, but some of the members are. EVDebs (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Now if you found the explanation given to Anna "straight forward", you are ignoring the question she gave. The works, be it private or publicly available, are owned by either organisations or respective persons regardless of religion or lack thereof (which the founder invoked a red herring fallacy). Asking permission from these owners is common courtesy, and as Anna had said, doesn't cost a thing. Keeping the group's project well in mind (and support as she emphasised), she wanted this confirmation, or "arse covering" as I know it, to ensure fair dealing with the handling of works in order to prevent DMCA or claims of copyright infringement. Now I can understand that if these public works do not have (which falls under their responsibility) their material transcribed, then the activist group can pursue legal matters to ensure that these works are transcribed for the disabled,instead of justifying theft of public works with the excuse "of the greater good". Was this addressed in any rational manner? No. As we both can plainly see, Anna is not the one assuming things. She was supporting the project, but was questioning principle (and as rational mind should). She was trying to paint the movement in a positive light by not having their movement act like the Mormon church or an organisation acting on the authority of "We will do it anyway". As the replies went further down, that seemed to be the case. It also didn't help their movement with Setar throwing accusation out the wind, and Jen threatening to ban Anna (which I do grant yout hat she did apologise AFTER the damage was done). Where was threat to ban Setar or any user threatening Anna? Her conversation was with Trinioler, the founde rof this project, and Trinioler invoked the following fallacies:
  • Circular ad hominem - Using circular logic to imply and assume that asking permission from potential copyright issues is to protect able-ism and thereby assault the individual of said allegation, which also served as a red herring far removed from the point that Anna was making (not straightforward at all)
  • Argumentum ad Baculum: That their stance is "if requested, we will not do so, but everything that is "public" (which I think they need to explain what they mean by that) is fair game to be transcribed and if anyone says otherwise out of principle, they are *insert bigotry here*
  • And finally, and not least they DIDN'T change their policy. It's virtually the same stance albeit different wording. As told Anna, the clear victim herself:
  • According to a commentator on Al Stefanelli’s blog, in reply to my comment #4, they have now changed their terms and conditions to require that work used has the permission of the author. Having gone to check this, it is untrue. The terms have not changed.Their terms of service indicate they have merely abdicated “responsibility for the or the contributions of its members.” They specifically disclaim responsibility for the accuracy of their transcripts, nor does one of their transcripts imply the endorsement by the original authors of the work, and their creative commons license only protects them.[16][17]


Sure, we can say the same for Anna being sarcastic when she shouldn't have been, but her point was being minimised incorrectly and rather haphazardly (as you claimed with my mishandling of three different arguments into one (that being said my primary humanistic argument is still uncontested with the recent revisions).User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


This isn't the first time they have invoked controversy. Another case is Matt Dillahunty's ( a male this time) experiment which, while intending to support their movement, ended up providing substance to the claims that dissenters had said with A+'s elitist procedures/practice. The result? Matt got banned (for breaking TOS) which he was fine with, but in order to save face, they began to blame him and demand that he apologise for something he was trying to point out and help fix their image. (evidence: [18] [19]). If any "single white male"-nay-individual, regardless of gender, race, orientation, and social status, cannot see this movement being divisive, volatile, and destructive in nature, than I think the skeptic community in general is doomed to fail on a united front. ~ Ronin Zanoh(talk) 9:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean the part where he directly violated a forum rule and had explained to him in detail why the anti-sockpuppeting rule was in place (i.e. nearly uncontrollable levels of trolling and sockpuppeting), and still tried to defend it, indeed started an argument over it? In fact, it's very close to the same reason I gave you a five minute ban, and at least somewhat related to why Greg Laden got thrown off of FtB. It wasn't his point that got him banned; it was the fact that he was being incredibly pushy and stupid about it. EVDebs (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Except Matt's case wasn't being stupid about it. He ACCEPTED the ban based on the TOS. But what he was arguing that the process of the ban, and the nature of how the moderators were reacting to new members validated the criticism against the forum's policies. Had these policies changed? Regardless of Matt's actions and promises of said change (which would support A+ in a good light), they claimed it was too much of a hassle and resorted to do virtually the same thing.User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. You are starting to get really wanky, Zanoh. Not to mention Gish gallopy. In fact, when I read between the lines, the message I get is "meh, who needs those shrill angry women anyway". (You are invited to explain why this is not the case.) All you're trying to do is come up with excuses to not take A+ seriously, which is what you seem to have been doing since the very beginning. You know who uses fling-shit-at-the-wall arguments? Creationists. Austrian economists. Conspiracy theorists. Holocaust deniers. I might also add that you've got a lot of nerve talking about presumption of guilt when your entire point of view is exactly that. This debate is over. Give me one good reason not to ban you for trolling. Or several. But do it coherently and don't insult my intelligence or anyone else's. EVDebs (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I got one EV, you don't have the fucking authority to. --Revolverman (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; I won't argue the point. EVDebs (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
//Facepalm. You are starting to get really wanky, Zanoh. Not to mention Gish gallopy. In fact, when I read between the lines, the message I get is "meh, who needs those shrill angry women anyway". \\
  • Got you. You are not engaging in rational conversation, therefore you have no authority to ban me. Never once did I accuse you or resort to ad hominems. You have, I am only stating in objective rational sense by principle why each point you made I have an issue with. Everytime I do so, you are either going "it's wishy washy" etc. That means you have no rational basis. Especially when I do cite and provide my sources. As for my claim on what Matt did? It's on his youtube channel[20][21], he's got two videos explaining his side, and the forum supports his reasoning. Where's yours? Oh right, it's never there. All I have is your word, and as a skeptic, your word means nothing to me. Since you already threatened me with ad baculum ( a common bully tactic) and ad hominem, I think the debate needs to end because you are not willing to challenge your beliefs and views on the line. The only intelligence that I have insulted was my own, thinking I'd have a rational discussion with you. I still look for such a time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And meanwhile back in the real world, you're still assuming your conclusion and failing to understand very simple concepts. It's because of people like you, who try to justify your own entitlement at any cost, who made A+ necessary in the first place. EVDebs (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

//And meanwhile back in the real world,\\ NOW YOU stop edit warring with me. BACK in the real world, your bollocks doesn't fly. Your improper removal of uncontested content wasn't necessary, and the only one with entitlement issues is you yourself. Both on several grounds, your ignorant arse kept ignoring crticism and principle to the point that compared to cited evidence you asked of me, you resort to ad hominems and conjecture. And I do not like being called a title "Anti-A+ Zealot" (thank you for proving why your movement isn't taken seriously and borderline unecessary from any rational discussion) just because your stupid arse has to be childish and play "one man up" with "holier than thou" attitude ad arrogance. Fix your attitude, or I shall fix it for you. Stop removing my humanism post, bloody tosser. User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
* EDIT: ........Okay.....for my threat of action, I sincerely apologise. I take pride in being a rational being, and I let my anger get the better of me. However, EvDebs, fellow skeptic and rational individual, I do not like being labeled something I'm not, and I clearly think you need to accept that there are people that have different views than you and your group (which I think you are personally attached to, clouding your judgement). With regards to what we have discussed, I have provided evidence substantiating every claim I have made. All I have from you is insults, red herrings, but more importantly, all I have is just your word. If you want to be taken seriously, at least provide evidence to your claims and we can rationally examine it together. Isn't that the point of a community? To work together? If not, then I probably will never know. User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Request of Inclusion: Humanism Reaction[edit]

After much discussion with several users, including one whom I have a row with at the moment, I post for the community's eyes a post that keeps getting vandalised and removed when it invokes no controversy, and addresses rational criticism to the allegations made by FTB, Jen McCreight, and PZ Myers. I leave it to you fine individuals to comment, critique, and discuss this post's inclusion.


The movement has attracted dissenting opinion and criticism from Humanists, as evidenced by the article, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". Quoting from the British Humanist Association, the authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blog authors Jen McCreight and PZ Myers on the allegation that Humanism, on its own grounds, was not exclusively skeptic/atheistic, and its organisations had "religious trappings". Their response was argued out by the following three key points that Humanists adhere to:

  • Trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
  • Makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
  • Believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

[Harold J. Blackham. [22]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.] While it is true that there are religious institutions that share humanistic principles, Humanism is a secular philosophy and principle derived from the stance of Atheism. The fact that Free Thought Blogs invoked logical fallacies on these grounds, led these humanist authors to challenge the principles on which Atheism Plus was trying to establish itself on. [Perseus & Io. [23]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.]

As for my recent comments in the talk page, I will make up for that accordingly.

Sincerely,
User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the "Amplified Atheist" post rather misses the point — as far as I know, Ms. McCreight is not, as the "Amplified Atheist" bloggers claim, trying to pretend that the political ideas she has tacked onto atheism to make A+ are part and parcel of atheism itself. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, mate. If you could pardon my ignorance, can you provide more insight to that train of thought? User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes[edit]

Men's Rights Movements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

"The men's rights movement (MRM), a subset of the larger men's movement, is focused on addressing discrimination against men in areas such as reproductive rights, divorce settlements, domestic violence laws, and sexual harassment laws.[1] It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s, differing from that movement in its focus and rejection of pro-feminist principles.[1][2]

Issues commonly associated with the men's rights movement include marriage, cohabitation, parentage, job discrimination, divorce, support agreements, and child support"

Misogyny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

"Misogyny (play /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1] The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry, the hatred or dislike of men; its antonym is philogyny, the love or fondness of women."

I would be willing to accept MRAs as misogynistic if all references to feminism were described as misandry too. Or, be honest and describe what they actually are rather than propaganda. How you FEEL is irrelevant to facts.

Matt Dillahunty, one of the most prominent atheists on YouTube and the internet, if his views are unworthy to be on this page then so are all the other atheists. — Unsigned, by: Superhamzah85 / talk / contribs

wait, what do you want changed? next time don't copy-paste definitions, the link would have sufficed. --Mikal Harass Follow 15:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, links only next time.

I would say my last contribution is what I want apart from a few poorly worded phrases. Such as (Matt Dillahunty) "He is yet to to fully acknowledge that the administration is across the board - unreasonable, irrational and authoritarian."

Should be "He disagrees that the administration is across the board - unreasonable, irrational and authoritarian."

That was just my opinion. - — Unsigned, by: Superhamzah85 / talk / contribs

Why Exactly do we need to have it state it;s his opinion? t --Mikal Harass Follow 15:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the section I wrote?

"Matt Dillahunty in good faith attempted to reinforce his belief that the Atheism Plus forum administration was reasonable and fair in response to the constant claims to the contrary.[9] He anonymously contributed to the forums an initial piece that represented his own views. Given that Matt Dillahunty was an early supporter of Atheism Plus and viewed in good light, he expected to be treated fairly even if anonymous. However, his initial piece did not even make it online and was rejected by the moderator. He is yet to to fully acknowledge that the administration is across the board - unreasonable, irrational and authoritarian. However, he emphasized that using an anonymous account was necessary and in his view an attempt to help the forum, he has since pulled back from his support somewhat after being told to apologize for helping them.[10]"

I think the following is better:

"Matt Dillahunty attempted to dispel what he considered exaggeration, on the part of criticis of the Atheism Plus administration as being unreasonable, irrational and authoritarian. He wanted to show the Atheism Plus forum administration was reasonable and fair in response to the surge of claims to the contrary.[9] He anonymously contributed to the forums an initial piece that represented his own views. Given that Matt Dillahunty was an early supporter of Atheism Plus and viewed in good light, he expected to be treated fairly even if anonymous. However, his initial piece was rejected by the moderator. "He disagrees that the administration is across the board - unreasonable, irrational and authoritarian." However, he emphasized that using an anonymous account was necessary and in his view an attempt to help the forum, he has since pulled back from his support somewhat after being told to apologize for his particular way of helping them.[10]"

I was writing with too much bias, as the page on atheism+ as it currently is, is a ridiculous joke.

It's a bit like saying "The Republicans along with other racist groups have decided to..."

Or,

"Atheists along with other people who hate God..."

By calling MRAs misogynist is just as stupid. Or calling feminists man-haters. Some of course in all groups, will exhibit those kinds of traits, but it's NEVER a given.— Unsigned, by: Superhamzah85 / talk / contribs

These people are incredibly unreasonable who are behind this page. I suppose if I told them that even the British say that men constitute almost half of all domestic violence victims, not including those who are afraid or ashamed to report it even on surveys, they'd somehow rationalize that it is part of some evil conspiracy designed to oppress women rather than simply data. I appreciate that there are some atheists out there who are not particularly fond of women, and a lot of people on the internet who will attack your movement if you say something, even in pathetic and mean-spirited trollish comments involving rape and threats. But that is not particularly unusual on any particular corner of the internet. I came here looking for information about "what is atheism plus?" I found a webpage written in a heavily biased and ad hominem tone and language that has no particular interest in describing its positions. Now, why do internet atheist males sometimes express sexist and aggressive views? Human males and females are, by nature, sexual individuals. They seek out and desire mates which they sometimes get and sometimes don't. Statistics indicate that people in the hard sciences, such as mathematics, physics, engineering, and other said fields do not have as much sex as their counterparts in the humanities. This may or may not produce a sense of entitlement in some males, but it will universally produce some feelings of resentment because, well, people don't like to be alone, male or female, for the most part. In fact, it is actually | life threatening for males to be single so it does not simply affect their potential to reproduce, but also their personal survival. I appreciate that the person who wrote this page is a feminist. I'm probably one of the few males who can do calculus who has sat through more than one Women Studies and Feminist Theory classes though I do not self-identify as feminist other than I am for fair and equal treatment of women in society and the workplace. However, to set yourself up to be attacked on the internet and then to furiously write webpages in some sort of attempt to make a label stick to anyone who would disagree with you is just childish - people who leave "omgzz u gonna get rapped tits or gtfo" comments on the internet are hardly even worth labeling and likely do not constitute the majority of moderately to strongly informed atheists. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool story, bro. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 02:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

This page is written in quite frankly a biased manner. It needs a total rewrite and a criticism section. Unless of course it's subtle satire I missed

Download (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone ever manages to come up with criticism that actually makes sense and is relevant to the topic instead of a strawman thereof, we will. Hasn't happened yet. EVDebs (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the criticism is with the tone of the page. It is by far one of the the most positive pages on anything here at RW. I do think it can be toned back a bit, but I'm not part of the Atheism community, so I doubt I could tone it down while keeping all relevant info on it. --Revolverman (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm getting a troll read there; I could be wrong, but this is definitely one of our trollbaitier articles on a subject which has been widely misrepresented, so just saying it's biased isn't nearly enough to justify a real discussion, especially since the above comment is the only thing OP has done so far on the whole wiki. Download up there is going to have to come up with some actual arguments. EVDebs (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Very true on the troll bait. Honestly, I have no problems with the ideas of Atheism+. It's just the people at FtB are some of the smuggest bastards on earth, and do their cause no favors. Really, almost any criticism I've seen of A+ is really just one of FtB. Anyone who has a problem with this page should think to see if their issue with the A+ or them. --Revolverman (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with your opinion of FtB, but that's a debate for another page. Anyway, I don't think you're wrong, although I think the main issue with A+ is that a lot of its opponents want to think that social issues don't matter. This is demonstrably not true (even from a theoretical standpoint, you can still make more-or-less empirical arguments about the value of respect and humility), but you still have to get past cultural blind spots, and when your core demographic includes an outsized proportion of angry, alienated nerds who have been shunned by society, you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing that part of the demo that they really do need to pay attention to their interactions with that same society if they want to be intellectually consistent. (That, incidentally, is where I think the #ftbullies meme comes from -- the people who use that framing think that it's high school all over again, except that this time it's their own kind slamming them into the lockers, and the fact that there are feminists in the crowd makes them think we (FtB/Skepchick/sympathizers) have joined forces with all the girls who turned them down and sold out to The Dudebro.) To be fair, I think there's also an element of it that comes in from the culture at large, and a certain number (particularly the libertarian contingent) are just engaged in crowd-motivated fuckwaddery against women, just because of the overall flareup of culture wars in the last few years and the fact that it's emboldened haters to be more public about their hate. It's basically the perfect shitstorm. EVDebs (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That's what saddens me about any sort of resistance to A+ from other Atheists. "If it isn't happening to me, then clearly its not actually happening.". I can see disagreements on what to do to fix these problems, but to deny them, or as some of the really whacked out MRA think, that this is full on global conspiracy to... well I really don't know what MRA think is happening, besides some weird ideas about some kinda female only empire that enslaves all men. This is all our problem, and to act like it isn't is childish. I... kinda ranted there. Sorry. --Revolverman (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the article is quite good. What is far more interesting (or perhaps more revealing) than the article is the number of complaints it generates.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't uncritically agree with an idea, you must hate it. Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy fuck you people are a parody --Henk (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific criticisms that can be actioned with meaningful precision. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Digital rape[edit]

The section Misogynist attacks includes the phrase:

"Although Atheism Plus began with a strong emphasis on the feminist part of its formal agenda, this was partially due to its roots in a response to sexual harassment and digital rape within the atheist community,"

Could someone clarify "digital rape" to this apparently naive old man - and confirm that it is frequent (or at least an issue) in the atheist community? Thanks.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A good example imho would be the page quote for TheAmazingAtheist. Humorless fascistsociopath 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that your answer is very profound but it is unfortunately lost on me.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
An example Humorless fascistsociopath 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The word "rape" occurs a lot in that link but not the word "digital". My question really is do we mean "digital" as opposed to "analogue" Something like "virtual rape"; or does it refer to digital as in "finger" - in which something is actually physically and violently inserted in some orifice?
And the second part of my question was "it is frequent (or at least an issue) in the atheist community?" Any chance of an answer which involves those "word" things rather than obscure references and links? Because if it leaves me confused it's certainly going to confuse somebody else.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 17:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the BoN who wrote it, but they are probably reffering to the wave of rape threats directed towards Jen McCreight, Greta Christian, etc. Since it isn't clear I'm going to reword it. Humorless fascistsociopath 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything particularly noteworthy about the "digital" aspect of some comments. The fact it was over the internet, and unlikely to be acted on over distance is fairly irrelevant. Some of TJ's quotes are outright, actual threats. There's no sense in diluting that with a new term that sounds more like it's a second attempt at "frape". Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 17:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "online rape threats" are not the same as "digital rape". I am not going to argue anyone was or was not "digitallly raped", but the sense of an online rape or a digital rape is that you were actually invade, raped online, intellecually. Usually endless vulgar attacks that are sexual in nature, to teh point where you are uncomfortable looking at your webpage or articles. "I'm going to rape you" vs. "you are a fucking cunt and my dick feels so good inside you... feel that?" one is just a threat, ugly as it is. One is the actual in the moment sense of being attacked, right then and there. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have not read anything of athesits, but when the women who was attacked for talking about women in video games was harrassed, I would have called that a "soft" or "minor" rape. they were not just threats. they were endless, ongoing attacks of her.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is much better as, when I google "digital rape", I find the finger meaning. So it's best to remove the ambiguity.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Except please make it clear - this is not about rape THREATS, it's about sexually violent language being tossed at women who disagree. I get that "digital rape" might be a dumb term, but "threats of rape" is not nearly all that happened.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC) PS, both "online rape" and "cyberspace" rape get hits by real women trying to catalogue their experiences. msot of them, in the exact same situations of being the wrong gender in an all boys club.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

BoN edits[edit]

Someone please check these edits by an unregistered user. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

... Humorless fascistsociopath 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
For what? & Why don't you? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know enough. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The only thing he's done that get my attention is that he removed a comment about raping atheists as punishment, and I kind of doubt that that happens--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BoN's links and "reasonable" (for lack of a better word) dissent[edit]

One thing about BoN's additions -- they all lean in the general "foaming misogynist lunatic" direction. Aren't there any dissenters out there who actually acknowledge the stated intent of Atheism Plus, or (as I suspect) is pretty much all the dissent either ignorance or "waaaaah we don't wanna change"? EVDebs (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A few of us here do object to the "herding cats" approach, and how uniting liberal progressives under an "atheism" banner is somewhat pointless as what the intent seems to be is "[Everything else] plus atheism" more than the other way around. Or am I still missing the point? Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 17:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe some, but not like the haters, that's for damn sure. EVDebs (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Is that just the same as saying you don't count as a critic unless you're a frothing-at-the-mouth misogynistic hater? Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 15:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, lord, I hope not... EVDebs (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dissenting views[edit]

I have now attempted to add the AntiAtheismPlus-reddit as well as a comprehensive list of resources of dissenting views about Atheism Plus. Both were removed by User:EVDebs. In no way do I wish to edit war. I disagree with these removals.

The reason for the removal of the reddit link was listed as:

Dissent is one thing, but Reddit has a nasty tendency to be nothing more than vomit on a web page. Come up with something that's at least civilized.

however, despite my second conciliation, the removal of the second link was given as

Not a fan of that either -- outright lying about the aims of the movement plus links to hatemongers like Franc Hoggle

This is plainly based in personal bias. Resources of dissenting views and outside perceptions of Atheism Plus should most definitely be included, particularly when a bulk of the article in question includes many points of view which question Atheism Plus' legitimacy and value. Removal of resources of dissenting views should not be based on being a "fan" (or not) of any particular site or author, nor should one's opinion of Atheism Plus prevent a dissenting view be linked, especially when presented specifically as such.

Please come to consensus. Thank you for being rational and reasonable. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"This is plainly based in personal bias". Well, yeah. This is Rationalwiki, we call ourselves a Mobocracy for a reason.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There are already cites to decently written articles critical of A+. The last thing we need to link to is the bottom of the internet, i.e. reddit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is only one cite that is critical of Atheism Plus in this article (and I wouldn't consider it "decently written"), and none in the "External Links" section.
As far as reddit, I've already acquiesced that its removal was fair enough by doing as EVDebs requested and providing a second dissenting site. Rather than pick through this second site and decide which individual listings are fair and which are not and then include each and every one -which even I see as not being reasonable nor viable and a waste of all our time- why not simply allow the second link I provided as a compromise? It seems more than fair. If you've got another site of dissenting views, I'm more than happy to see what you'd bring to the table in this domain. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit war until you get blocked and someone gets all up in the blocker's talk page. Wait two days for things to settle down. Put what you want back in. Simple. C®ackeЯ 06:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Thanks, but I'm not going to handle this in that way on the rational wiki. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Fetch the rum. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 13:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no value in putting up "dissent" pages that clearly and willfully misrepresent the aims of A+ to begin with, and quite a few of those are in fact hate sites; those that aren't are still claiming that the people demanding respect are being divisive, which is almost always a clear sign of a total lack of self-awareness regarding the issue at hand, i.e. a lack of skeptical thinking. (I mean, yes, it's possible that the A+ side is the divisive one, but it seems really unlikely, given the fact that very little of the opposition seems to be willing to even take up the question in the first place.) Basically, A+ is meant to address a huge blind spot in the community, and it's run up against the broader culture wars and the common but painfully naive perception that in order to make sure everyone gets a fair shake, you "don't do that then". (If this was all happening on Wikipedia, much of the opposition would be in violation of Assume Good Faith.) I mean, parts of the backlash are understandable, but the atheist/skeptical community really does claim to aspire to actually questioning things, and I have yet to see an opponent of A+, reasonable or not, appearing to question the underlying prejudices that brought A+ into existence in the first place. Instead, a lot of opponents have simply closed ranks and treated supporters as traitors to the cause. Whether the opponents are right or wrong, that behavior is thoroughly shameful, and utterly against what we skeptics all claim to stand for. We should not be promoting that behavior. EVDebs (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In this case, I will be more than happy to go through the second site, evaluate each page listed here on the talk page, site by site, and include detailed info from each one within the article itself, rather than simply include the whole as an external link. I hardly think this is preferable to Atheism Plus supporters, but if this is how you'd like it handled...38.109.88.133 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that this page was linked BY the AntiAtheismPlus subreddit, which has also recently accused a PUA website as being too feminist which may be the source of the current whinging. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, I wouldn't categorize the users of this site as Atheism+ supporters. If you'll check the discussion on the topic at the saloon bar, the consensus seems to be that A+ is largely a pointless exercise in creating new labels. The issue is the so-called "dissenting views" are seriously problematic on their own. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
...and I have yet to see an opponent of A+, reasonable or not, appearing to question the underlying prejudices that brought A+ into existence in the first place. - That would be what Thunderf00t did and was made a pariah for it. He didn't mention A+ specifically, but his view was expressed against the kind of people who view A+ as a good thing and those who founded it. His argument was that he saw it largely as a response to sexual harassment at conventions, which he viewed as "not a problem" because it was a global thing, rather than something specific and unique to the atheism/skeptic community. That's pretty much "questioning the underlying prejudices". Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 15:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are conflating several events here. There was a blogospheric argument over harassment policies for atheist/skeptic conventions, which reignited rifts and antipathies left over from Elevatorgate (and added a few new ones). Thunderf00t decided to jump in the fray in a rather uninformed and inflammatory way.* He was removed from FtB in July, Atheism+ was founded in August, according to our article. Ed Brayton made the "pariah" comment after it came to light that TF has infiltrated the network's private mailing list and was redirecting stuff to third parties.
(* Some skeptics/atheists seem unable to hold arguments with "friendly" parties (other skeptics/atheists, friends, relatives, etc), as their only debating experience is with hostile and/or trolling opponents (creationists, Internet cranks, etc).)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If you want "dissent" (interesting word choice - why not "opposition" or "criticism"?) that was not made by a barking troll, you can try Sarah Mayhew. Though she's definitely not a neutral observer. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(EC)I possibly did switch the events around in the timeline. Though it's not too much of a stretch to say that the ideas Tf00t was pissed with seem remarkably similar to what A+ is getting at - August was just the coining of the term, they'd been "doing" A+ for some time before that. Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thunderf00t's behavior was extreme and inexcusable. His firing had very little to do with his positions. If what you say above is what he was trying to say, he clearly failed totally to get that point across. EVDebs (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The brief was for anyone who had questioned the underlying prejudices, "reasonable or not". Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You continue to debate the subject matter of Atheism Plus itself here. This is wholly inappropriate. Supporting Atheism Plus (or not), discussing its merits or drawbacks, the skills and powers (or lack thereof) of its leaders or detractors: that's for the forums of the Atheism Plus and Anti-Athiesm Plus movement itself. This venue is to discuss how to sculpt a more balanced and evenly weighted article, which is inclusive of all views of the rationalist community as it perceives Atheism Plus. Please attempt to separate and differentiate this goal. If you are unable to do so, please politely remove yourself from the conversation and editing of this article. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Or else what? :D Are you going to block us, BoN? Also, I'd like to know what are you smoking and whether it is legal in your jurisdiction. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't threatening to do anything. I was politely asking. But thank you for...uh..."explaining"...how this wiki works.38.109.88.133 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, no, "balance" and "evenly weighted" are anathema here. This is NOT Wikipedia, and no groups have a monopoly on discussion. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 16:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. How very in the spirit of Atheism Plus. Thank you for, uh, "explaining". 38.109.88.133 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And trolling views[edit]

NOW I GET IT. Sorry for bothering y'all. Ladies. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And you're welcome to go hoggle yourself, anywhere but here. EVDebs (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The entity known as "hoggle" either was the BoN, or noticed the incoming link, and has published a new post on RW: RationalWiki Showing It’s Anything But Again (Drink!) Included is an abbreviated archive of this section, with lots of posts missing without any indication that they existed, such as an ellipsis. ORavenhurst's reply has been bolded and pointed out as somehow significant, which is hilarious. (For the audience: see RW:SPOV and try reading a few articles.)--ZooGuard (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, Hoggle is Australian. I'm not saying it's not him, but the IP address traces back to New York. If it is Hoggle, he's either moved or using a proxy. EVDebs (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and a thing about Franc Hoggle -- he's creepy as all fuck. He's openly threatened to stalk PZ Myers and evidently has more than a little of a Mabus feeling about him. I've invoked the hate speech rule to not provide a link to his blog on the Internet kooks page. EVDebs (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not Hoggle/Victor Ivanoff/a personal stalker. I thought this was legitimately a place that wanted a semblance of balance, but you sure schooled me. The fact that you traced my IP to my state -contrary to Rational Wiki Community Standards- and somebody offsite wrote an article about the whole thing sure is proof of YOU being stalked and ME being a troll, though. Atheism Plus logic at her bestest. Tell me more about how you're the victim and I'm creepy and Atheism Plus is empowering you to use critical thinking skills and engender equality.
Snarky enough? 38.109.88.133 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No, just stupid enough. The "somebody offsite" was practically invited by you when you linked to their blog, and they are not an "objective" observer either. My speculation about your identity was caused by the speed their post appeared after your "gotcha", and nobody in the discussion mentioned their alleged real name before you. I also can't see where where EVDebs accused you of stalking. Try reading the words people write, not the words you think they've written. Oh, and do please stick to your flounce.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm touched that I got called out. I love how this site assumes that Rationalwiki is some monolithic entity where everybody agrees with each other. Whatever. The AntiAtheism+ subreddit recently used a PUA blog as an example of feminism running rampant, so it's not like these people are gaining any credibility whatsoever. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing the objections I've seen[edit]

Most of the objections I've seen to A+ come down to one of two questions. The most common one is "Why are you trying to keep men from getting laid?". Since A+ is in fact explicitly pro-fun and pro-sex, this is not only not answerable, it's not worth the trouble to try, since it's fundamentally dishonest. The second, the "Dear Muslima" question, is "What makes you think this is a problem?" This is essentially an argument from ignorance, given legitimacy because it comes from Richard Dawkins and Elevator"gate", long before the term A+ was coined. (The "you're being divisive" argument is a more malicious restatement of the same condescending question, just like American conservatives complaining about "class warfare".) I've yet to see any substantive criticisms that don't break down into those categories. Thoughts? EVDebs (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Or option three: It's a redundant rebranding. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, that's kind of a quibble over emphasis. I don't consider it a major objection; it's sort of like arguing over open source software vs. free software. The two terms don't mean the same thing, but the sets of things they describe are more or less identical. In this case, A+ focuses specifically on issues internal to the community, so it represents a specific subset of humanism overall. Something like a task force. It's better than the more common objections though, if only because although I think it misses the mark, it is at least honest about what A+ represents. EVDebs (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Except that seems to be the most common objection. I think you're seriously over-emphasising the idea that all critics of A+ are rabid misogynists. Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a confusion between "commonness" and "loudness". The most visible "critics" are the most loud and persistent (to the point of obsession). The people who say "meh, not for me" and quietly go on on their own business don't get noticed.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me reiterate.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I like the follow-up post a bit better - really gets into specifics. But when McCreight says "...and I see the humanists as our natural allies" I still get the same concern. "Ally" seems, to me, like a begrudging acceptance. Just by the mere act of attempting to coin a term for something causes when McCreight claims to want to avoid. Actively coining a label and trying bolt ideas together isn't entirely compatible with apparently not caring what label people use to identify themselves with. Labels create the division, and begrudgingly accepting allies - as is in war - emphasises this rather than breaks the barriers down. Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re this: "Why are you trying to keep men from getting laid?". Since A+ is in fact explicitly pro-fun and pro-sex, this is not only not answerable, it's not worth the trouble to try, since it's fundamentally dishonest. That's not the greatest attitude. Lots of the stuff we write about at RW is fundamentally dishonest (like most aspects of the creation science / intelligent design industry) and we still analyze & refute them. Plus the "why are you trying to keep men from getting laid?" response to Elevatorgate was common enough (including some RW readers/editors) that we can't simply put it down to dishonesty. Some people do genuinely see the controversy in these terms & we should point out what is wrong with this criticism rather than simply dismissing it out of hand. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did Jen McCreight, or whoever else is in charge of the term, state which specific denomination of feminism is part of the "Atheism Plus" orthodoxy? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

CounterPunch vs. A+[edit]

Looks like A+ is not up to scratch for those pinkos: [24], [25] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what to say about that. It appears to be pretty much the same kind of Jacobin bullshit that keeps getting people like Laci Green ganged up on on Tumblr. It certainly doesn't do anything to address the issue it claims to care about, which would properly be done by, you know, joining the movement and being the difference that they want to see. Just another bunch of purity trolls IMHO... actually, it reminds me of the people who referred to Slutwalk as racist when it was pretty much open to everyone. Um... what's keeping you from joining in, people? EVDebs (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To the Idiots[edit]

I have removed some of the more vicious ad hominem and red herring attacks included in your wikipedia page (you're against "general crepiness?" Can you sound like any more of a valley girl (since we're big fans of ad hominem here) on something called the "RationalWiki?" Please reference the following video for your idiocy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k — Unsigned, by: 98.208.85.43 / talk / contribs

Thanks for your input. Inspiration Move me brightly. 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hee: "viscous". Scream!! (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, that is a frequent misspelling of mine. I appreciate all opportunities to improve my writing as I was attempting to do with some trolling edits that are, regardless of the fun hostility I openly express in the reasons for censure, completely valid points. It is clear that someone in the page is either an excellent cult leader or has been severely traumatized by the initial reactions on the internet. This is, of course, the internet. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time on the internet should expect a great deal of abuse from the internet community - because - we're assholes and we like being assholes. As Jen McCreight states that when someone's views are confronted, the first reaction is to be defensive about those views. Atheism, in and of itself, is not an ideological position. Secular humanism is, and I think there is a great deal of disservice done to that movement by constructing such a poorly written reaction to views critical of a movement, unless, that page is, in and of itself, a criticism and parody of the movement. I watch Joss Whedon and I see carefully constructed arguments for secular humanism, many of which are written over the heads of the general audience. One of the central tenants of Secular Humanism and of early feminism is the expression of compassion. To be extremely dismissive of all attacks against one's movement under one category such as "mysogyny" or to suggest that these people are akin to "bell curve racists" who I have honestly never seen any empirical data to legitimize or de-legitimize their positions which I would not be concerned is not fully accounting for socioeconomic and sociological factors is to absolutely de-legitimize anything further you have to contribute to a community that I am more than willing to admit has some members strongly lacking in empathetic values, e.g. strict rationalist skeptics who can speak in almost no language but that of logic and science and to whom the presence of emotion within a concept invalidates that particular concept. I am sorry that Jen McCreight undoubtedly got a weight of sexual harassment on the internet, but, it is the internet, home to anybody who can afford a small piece of silicon. But, this is likely when someone does something like she did - and especially if you challenge an Islamic ruler in public. That being said, I think, if "Atheism Plus" really has problems with "classism," it would be appropriate to not criticize the stereotype of disenfranchised males such as is done on this page by utilizing the stereotype of "guys in their mom's basement." Making fun of your opposition does not win or support an argument. I honestly am not very familiar with this website, and so maybe its purpose is to make fun of everything. However, it is the most immediate source for something I read about called "Atheism Plus" when one Googles it. I am uncertain whether this page is supposed to be a serious portrayal of the movement or a parody/criticism of it - or perhaps the result of an edit war between two sides. Regardless, I look up "Young Earth Creationism" and I get something other than a propaganda spiel, but an objective characterization of the viewpoint along with counterarguments to it. I assume that is because the community somehow regards discussing things it does not believe in objective terms and discussing things it does believe with heavily loaded language? Can you seriously be opposed to classism and opposed to "creepiness" simultaneously? As Chris Hedges says of liberal elite, "They liked the poor but did not like the smell of the poor." Perhaps I am simply confused as to what RationalWiki represents and whether it is supposed to be a perpetual troll - because the whole page sounds like a troll. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and Atheism Plus[edit]

There's something interesting about this article. I was raised pentecostal by Sarah Palin's incredibly insane and abusive cult, The Assemblies of God. Their method of talking is very similar to your method of talking. For example, if I wanted to play D&D, I would be told "that's demonic" or "that's satanic." If I wanted to go to public school, I was told "that's demonic," or, "that's Satanic." If I wanted to watch X-men, I would be told "that's demonic," or "that's Satanic." Do you see how they kind of begged the question? D&D's alignment system they found revealing of the idea that a person can be simultaneously evil and lawful at the same time, this is unacceptable because Republicans are fucking evil and lawful. But, I was supposed to understand that lawful = good and unlawful = bad. So, D&D was "demonic." Public school would teach me about evolution or that there might not be a God or that abortion is a woman's choice, so it was "demonic," and "Satanic." There was no actual discussion needed because the opposing view had already been classed as something which everyone knew was bad. X-Men might teach me that people have DNA, and belief in DNA is a slippery slope to belief in Evolution. So, X-Men was "demonic," or "Satanic." There was no discussion needed because it was all classed under something that was already bad.

Of course, this wiki's editors probably aren't bright enough to draw the analogy themselves, so I'll spell it out for you: when you automatically label every single opposition to your group as "mysoginst," especially in an article that should show at least the slightest modicum of objectivity, you are doing precisely what a feminist group should seek to avoid, stifling the capacity for women and others to think for themselves. But, hey, this isn't about thinking for oneself, this isn't about empowering womens' minds, it's about oppressing them by teaching them to see everything outside of mainstream ideology as the most evil thing of all: "demonic," or "Satanic," or "misogynistic."

I don't know why people keep reverting my edit where I insert Charlotte Perkins Gilman under bell-curve racism. I mean, after all, that insult is supposed to only apply to people who disagree with feminism - making people who are against one or more aspects of feminism akin to "Bell Curve Racists" which Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in fact, was - though she wrote before that particular book existed. See, we already know racism is bad, so, people who have problems with Atheism Plus must be, not only "mysoginists," but also "bell-curve racists." But, since you opened up the wiki to inclusion of the suggestion that people who disagree with you are racist, I don't know why there shold be problem with me pointing out that there's a feminist who is also a racist. In fact, she wasn't just a racist, she believed that a significant portion of African-Americans ought to be considered property of the fucking state. So, she's a racist and a slave-driver. (That doesn't even approach her view where almost all men would be exterminated and/or held captive and used only for breeding purposes), not that she's also a misandrist in addition to being a racist and a slave-driver.

Here's an idea, why doesn't someone clean the insults off this page and people won't complain about the insults on the page anymore. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit, I'm a bit out of the loop in regards to this whole debate. Is Charlotte Perkins Gilman only being mentioned because she's a racist feminist? Balaam (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
His Creepiness has an issue with the following sentence:
For example, there has been nowhere near this level of controversy over the anti-racist plank of the Atheism Plus platform (but no doubt there are some Bell Curvers out there waiting to inject some "race realism" into the matter).
He apparently reads it as "all critics of Atheism+ are racist".
What it actually says is:
  • Feminism is only one of the planks of the Atheism+ platform
  • Anti-racism is another plank
  • Atheism+'s anti-racist stance has received much less controversy that its feminist one
  • But there's no doubt that there are people/atheists whose views run contrary to the anti-racist stance and who claim a scientific basis for their racism ("race realism").
(Side note: See the current discussion on Talk:Race for an example of the last point.)
After failing to comprehend the sentence, our new buddy tries to pull a tu quoque by inserting Gilman.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Gilman died in 1935 and is totally irrelevant to an article on a 21st century movement no matter what she believed. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
To GeneralCreepiness: you have repeatedly failed to notice that "Misogynist attacks" is only one of the sub-sections of "Reactions", so the article doesn't label all of the reactions misogynistic. If you have examples of reactions that fall outside of the existing categorization, feel free to add another section - this is a wiki and by definition, every article is a work in progress.
As for the rest, I suggest suggest toning down the hyperbole and the self-aggrandizement, if you want to be taken seriously.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not engaging in "self-aggrandizement." I was drawing a very valid analogy based on prior experience with cult methodology. Here is the original statement: Although Atheism Plus began with a strong emphasis on the feminist part of its formal agenda, this was partially due to its roots in a response to sexual harassment and sexually violent language being tossed at women within the atheist community, and partially due to the actions of the misogynists themselves, who have kept the focus on gender issues. For example, there has been nowhere near this level of controversy over the anti-racist plank of the Atheism Plus platform (but no doubt there are some Bell Curvers out there waiting to inject some "race realism" into the matter). The implication of this statement is quite clear and very much in line with cult techniques. I would suggest that one reference Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism for information regarding this matter. Specifically, it is a "Milleu-control" technique whereby you enforce a prejudice by creating a hyperbolic analogy stating that those who oppose some aspect of feminism are, firstly, akin to the trolls on the internet, and secondly, are, by extension, akin to bell-curve racists. This is specifically because it, quite intentionally, follows the discussion of troll attacks on the internet being akin to people who have critical thoughts regarding feminism. It is derived from the same kind of nonsense that Gloria Allred says that, "if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot." That would be true if we lived in an era where women couldn't own property, couldn't vote, couldn't dress how they pleased (with the exception of showing breasts in public which I couldn't care less about either way), couldn't hold offices, didn't have a majority representation in schools, didn't receive 96.4% of all alimony payment, didn't represent only 10% of our prison population, didn't have access to abortion or birth control, didn't file 70% of the country's divorces, or weren't overwhelmingly, by choice, absent from hard sciences and engineering, etc.. Nobody is opposed to anti-racist ideals because, well, most people aren't racists. However, the implication of the original statement is that all people who are opposed to some points of third-wave feminism are akin to bell-curve racists - and anyone capable of skeptical reading of literature recognizes that fact. Some people, however, differ on the level of speech control which one group ought to be able to exert on another. For example, should I be able to charge my Feminist Theory Professor with sexual harassment because she passed out "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm" like the biology professor who handed a colleague a paper on "Fruit Bat Fellatio?" Of course not, because I'm male and males can't be sexually harassed, every great litigator knows that. And, I might add, only litigators, because, ultimately, that's who really profits from the classing of speech as illegal and statistics indicate that, in no way, is the United States interested in relinquishing its role as the supreme supporter of lawyers and supreme incarcerater.
What is most frightening about the adamant classing of all forms of speech which might provoke dating or in any way mention human anatomy as sexual harassment (except, of course, essays like "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm"), is that this has been the number one thing that sold the Ku Klux Klan for years. The vast hysteria that black men were violating women all over the country all the time. It led to public lynchings on Sundays where the whole community would show up to hang the man who whistled at a woman, clearly a crude act, but in no way something which should call for death. The myth that women are excessively vulnerable to speech and men are not is the primary objection that I see from your opponents, which, does not, in and of itself, constitute misogyny. Additionally, I am still uncertain that verbally expressing attraction to a woman's mammary glands constitutes a sex act as McCreight implies when she states that she must "consent" (quite the "loaded language") to other peoples' speech RIGHTS.
Anyway, the lack of objectivity on this wiki page shows the true face of the movement for any actual critical thinkers who are atheists. It is unfortunate to see any particular group of atheists stoop to the level of cultic regulation techniques. You are acting like the Ku Klux Klan and any person who has studied anything about the history of civil rights in this country knows it. I became interested in feminist ideology due to the literature of Joss Whedon, and I found the most admirable quality of Buffy, for example, was her capacity to exercise mercy. You'll find that many atheists will be critical of all ideologies which they try to have shoved down their throats by force rather than persuasion.
So, good luck, champions of the United States Justice System and supporters of litigator profiteering everywhere, you really represent "humanist" standards in the country calling for more totalism in a country already sporting the highest incarceration rate in the world, the largest per capita population of lawyers in the world, and sporting a hefty 500% increase in corrections incarceration in the last 30 years. I guess I should have sued my Feminist Theory professor for sexual harassment for mentioning "vagina" in class - because there's nothing in the world more indicative of critical and logical thought than willful suppression, demonization, and vilification of all speech which might cause discomfort. Clearly, however, RationalWiki doesn't particularly have standards about objectivity in articles, so it is obviously a misinterpretation of general standards which which one generally attributes to self-professed critical thinkers.
When you create an ideology and coopt the word "atheist" and decide that you are going to engage in a militant crusade against other atheists, you ought to expect opposition. And, well, it appears all you've done is cause a stir among internet people by attempting to usurp their club by imposition of a moral dogma invented by lawyers - the single least rational group of professionals in the United States. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Still swinging at phantoms and burning straw, I see. Your rant may sound reasonable to you, but from here it looks like a pile of non-sequiturs, liberally sprinkled with spittle.
If the fruitbat story is the same I'm thinking about, the transgressions of that man were a bit more than just showing someone a study.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Shorter GeneralCreepiness: "Stop making me beat you, baby." EVDebs (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Critics of feminism"[edit]

If we take feminism to mean "the idea that women are equal to men," I don't see how you can criticize that and not be misogynist, so I reverted the edit in question. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have phrased that as "criticism of the movement's approach to feminism", but either way, that section needs work. Has anybody got any actual sources which can be cited, such as specific individuals who have made these criticisms? Balaam (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This might be worth a reading... Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That section is a not-so-good description of the mess surrounding the harassment policy controversy and the anti-FtB haterdom, which was inherited by A+. (I was going to rewrite the section to use exactly that title - "The haters".) Most of the nastiness is in blog comments and forum posts, as the backlash was mostly "grasroots", and a lot of it conflated Skepchick.org, Freethought Blogs and A+/the A+ forums into a single malevolent feminist entity. (This is another issue that the article should cover - the difference between Atheism+ as a label and as a forum community.) The general controversy continues, but I'm not sure if A+ is still on the opposing force's radar - I don't keep tabs on them.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the section should be renamed "Criticism of views on gender politics" or something similar, that way we can work in Pat Condell's weird comment about Islam (which wasn't misogynistic, exactly, just... bizarre and ill-informed). Balaam (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

it has to be Atheist +[edit]

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. --Green mowse.pngGodotRIP 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 Socks cat 1.JPG (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)
Still better than Atheism Bob. ТyJFBAA 07:11, 31 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)

[edit]

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)

  • So, how was my editing "feeding the trolls?"--Mustex (talk) 13:57, 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. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Um, no that isn't why they formed, [26] [27], [28]. 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. Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 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. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 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)
Cept "fucking idiot" pretty much defines humans.  ;-) Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Cannot argue against that one. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 22:19, 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. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 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. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 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)

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)

Did this thing die already?[edit]

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)
Hanging on by their fingernails. It was a good idea, but like most good ideas someone else thought of it first. Tielec01 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"the more egregious antics of that eminent YouTube jerk, TheAmazingAtheist"[edit]

Is this a blog or an encyclopedia 128.189.116.140 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the critics of Atheism+[edit]

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)

Something by some wannabe Satan[edit]

I tried editing this page under the heading 'Other Objections' because I wanted to clearly state my objection to atheism+. This is what I wrote :

It should also be mentioned that for a lot of people atheism is the result of critical thinking in a world that shows no evidence for the existence of god(s) whatsoever. Atheism+ however disallows criticism directed at its pet ideologies, showing that they are not actually critical thinkers at all. Association with this movement is a reliable indicator of a faux intellectual.

Maybe I should also mention that they tend to use the same bad logic (usually ad hominem) that religious people use.

Moderator, can you tell me what was wrong with my comment? I like to know.

Thanks in advance,

Rogier— Unsigned, by: TheAdversary / talk / contribs

Note: Please sign your posts using the "Signature and Timestamp" button or four tildes (i.e. the ~ character).
Anyway, the section "Other objections" documents objections that have been made about Atheism Plus. You can make such a comment in the talk section (as you just did) but the article should contain things that at least resemble factual statements. If there are specific people who have made the above criticism feel free to document it. If you think it is a factual statement, others (including myself and presumably the editor who removed it) disagree so feel free to argue about it here. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From the article : Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism. This sentence just doesn't make any sense to me. Atheism is the result of critical thinking and skepticism because we happen to live in a world without evidence for the existence of god(s). Had there been sufficient evidence for the existence of god, I wouldn't be an atheist. If god would come down from heaven and prove his existence to the world I would become a theist. But he never does, so atheism remains a good working assumption. But I would change my opinion if new information becomes available. That's critical thinking. That's skepticism. That is the scientific method. This sentence from the article seems to imply that atheism is unrelated to critical thinking and skepticism. Which means it is just an article of faith, then. It's atheism that comes from a dislike of religion, not from a desire to understand the world. And people who do not want to understand the world are always very quick to lecture everybody else on how things should be. Hence the emphasis on social issues. All this is contrary to the scientific method. Contrary to critical thinking. Contrary to rationality. That is why people like Richard Dawkins and Thunderf00t don't like it. The most dangerous pseudo sciences are those who know how to imitate science the best. And here with this atheism+ nonsense we have pseudoscience masquerading as rationality itself! It will deceive the very elect! Luckily it will also mercilessly expose this branch of feminism as a harmful pseudoscience, to the people who are still rational. But now I'll probably be labeled a womyn hating misogynist, which is their favorite ad hominem. In fact, it is this feminist influence and its vitriolic bad logic that is primarily responsible for the collapse of the reasoning faculties of would-be intellectuals. That is why it can deceive the very elect! And I am very sad to see so many 'rational' and 'skeptic' sites be taken in by this poison.TheAdversary (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you will be labeled a pretentious buffoon who can't use MediaWiki formatting for shit and reads too much into a single sentence of a mission statement. Writing stuff like "deceive the very elect" doesn't make you look rational, it makes you look like an euphoric teenager. --ZooGuard (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Defending women's rights is poison? That seems like a pretty odd claim for someone who claims to be a critical thinker. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ZooGuard : I'm sorry I don't know how to use MediaWiki formatting. My apologies. As for the one thing that resembles a counterargument : I think that that one sentence contains something essential. And I have explained it in detail above. Do you have an actual counterargument? I'd like to hear it. The rest are vitriolic personal attacks which prove my point. Thanks for this! As for the other comment : Obvious straw man. Just read what I wrote above. Exactly where does it say that I'm against women's rights?TheAdversary (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Atheism can be the result of critical thinking but it doesn't have to be. Lots of Atheists demonstrate very poor critical thinking skills. Others -- and I would include Dawkins in this -- seem to think that because they self-identify as rational, all views they hold must also be rational and therefore those who disagree are inherently irrational. The easiest person to fool is always yourself. SpecialFFrog (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
So you're not against women's rights but you are against the movement that fights for those rights? Seems kind of contradictory, doesn't it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Luckily the scientific method prevents us, as far as can be, from fooling ourselves. An experiment must be repeatable and verified by many people independently of each other to ensure objectivity. It doesn't matter what you think, all that matters is what the experiment says. If I go on it will lead to a discussion about the demarcation problem so I'm going to stop now. The point : scientific experiment as a way of not fooling ourselves. The divorce of atheism from scepticism means then that I would lose my argument against the religious : Is atheism not just another form of faith? No! Because all the facts of science, which aims to be as objective as possible, show us that the Universe seems to be unguided. So if you cannot use that argument, why is atheism not just another religion? Which is why they need to show that religion is wrong in another way. Atheism+ folk are atheists because of moral and social gripes. Which causes a schism with the science geeks, like me. And then you add feminism to the mix ... This problem of men being overrepresented in such communities challenges established feminist dogma. Sexual dimorphism really is the more plausible theory, because the social oppression arguments would require justifications of almost conspiracy-theory like levels nowadays. And then the bad logic that they must use is not only poisonous in itself because of the subject matter, but also because some of the men in those communities are easy targets. And then you have an enormous amount of poison to protect the bad logic. This form of feminism, and there are many forms of feminism some of which I support, needs to be exposed for the ultra poisonous pseudoscience that it is. Now I can just repeat the 'what's the harm' argument I hope. It's not about oppressing women. It's about exposing pseudoscience which hides behind such powerful ad hominems.TheAdversary (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You've clearly given the issue of gender imbalance in scientific / skeptic communities a good several minutes of thought and decided that it must be sexual dimorphism and yet you are accusing proponents of Atheism+ of embracing pseudoscience?
As an exercise, pick an area where men are supposedly superior -- say scientific ability -- and draw a bell curve representing the distribution of natural ability in men in this area. Now draw a bell curve for the distribution of women's natural ability on top of the previous one. Clearly you think that the centre of the women's curve will to be the left of that of the men's curve, and you may be correct (I won't claim no biological factor is possible). But how far to the left would it have to be to make the current imbalance in the sciences solely a matter of natural ability? Do you honestly think that such a claim could be justified based on the evidence?
As I said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Science helps us to stop fooling ourselves but only if we look at actual evidence instead of just pretending that because I am into science, my intuitions must be rational.
Besides, you still don't seem to actually understand Atheism+ and appear to be attacking imaginary feminists. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Then let me present the evidence : They have been encouraging women to try to succeed in traditional male professions since I was young in my country (Holland). More girls into programming, mathematics etc. And this is great. Everyone should get the same chances. However in some areas, like in the aforementioned communities, there are still more men than women. How do you explain this? See it as an experiment. You try to get more women involved by taking away the social barriers. And then if the same pattern emerges, evidence is in favour of an explanation that requires an innate difference. Be it biological, or something else about human behaviour we don't understand yet. I don't think everything can be explained by biology but no scientific theory ever is complete, and you cannot use incompleteness as an argument against a scientific theory. Sexual dimorphism is a good incomplete theory. The opposing theory, that of oppression of women, is falsified. It really does not have the evidence in its favour. So yes, I think I can make that claim based on the evidence. All theories being but incomplete descriptions of reality if I have to choose between innate difference or social oppression in this case I would choose the first. It's what the experiment says. However, the case is ambiguous enough to lead to endless discussions, and endless experiments. It's just that this biological theory is not an irrational position to take, and doesn't deserve the amount of hatred it receives. That, in itself, is suspicious. And it shows that my feminists might not be so imaginary.TheAdversary (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I went through both undergraduate and graduate programs in physics. While encouragement for women to enter scientific fields is there, there still exists prejudice within these programs. I know quite a few women who transferred out of the physics program due largely to harassment from male students. Saying that the social barriers are lifted is not correct, and it's clear you're missing a very important factor here. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't try and draw the bell curves. Why would you when you can cite anecdotes as if they represented significant evidence? Some unspecified attempts to remove barriers to women in sciences didn't entirely work therefore the barriers don't exist, apparently.
And for a "science geek" you are not demonstrating a strong ability to evaluate a hypothesis based on the evidence. Clearly some evidence favours your hypothesis and some doesn't. It is therefore possible to do some rough calculation to give a probability of the hypothesis being true based on the evidence. What probability would you give to your hypothesis? If it is 60%, would you consider that sufficient to decide that it is "true" and a reasonable basis for making policy decisions?
In reality, probably no hypothesis has enough evidence to even reach the 50% mark. We just do not know at this stage and so trying to work towards fairness is a reasonable goal.
Here's a fun read for you: a study looking at gender-based expectations of an infants ability to crawl.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

They have been implementing this social mechanism to such a degree that it is now almost thoughtcrime to insinuate otherwise and still less women than men in those areas? The evidence in favour of innate difference is stacking up to such a degree that actual social intimidation mechanisms are necessary to uphold this unscientific attitude. A little bit of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding.TheAdversary (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You realize you have yet to provide any evidence that isn't anecdotal yourself, right? - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of my argument relies on anecdotal evidence, exactly? Everything can be verified by yourself.TheAdversary (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what scientific evidence is, because you're certainly not providing it. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I didn't follow up on that statistics bit because it only asked for one question : do you have any evidence? That talk about bell curves was completely unnecessary, like dead code. And yes, I do. And it is not anecdotal. These mechanisms of positive discrimination have been in place for decades. And they didn't work as expected. Otherwise this whole movement wouldn't even exist, probably. How can that be anecdotal evidence? It just states that gender-issues were recognized and people have been trying to do something about it. Do you disagree with this? And no, the question is not whether the barriers exist, but why they are there in the first place. For reasons of innate difference or social causes. And because of the prevalence of those mechanisms in society you can consider it a enormous social experiment. That's a shitstorm of evidence! Readily available to everybody! Again, some vacuous pseudo-statistics talk to say essentially this post-modernist crap about 'nobody knows anything'. Except that feminism is true of course ...TheAdversary (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So noting that no hypothesis has sufficient evidence to consider it more than a hypothesis is "post-modern" and Bayesian inference is "vacuous pseudo-statistics" . What kind of "science geek" are you exactly?
And no, the bell curve exercise wasn't just asking you for evidence. It was to get you to realize how much of an inherent difference you are claiming exists. Do you really think your hand-waving and appeals to Google are sufficient for that kind of claim?
There have been efforts to eliminate racial inequality for decades as well. Since that has not succeeded, does that mean "scientific racists" are right?SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

TheAdversary, point us to 1 scientific study supporting your position. So far your evidence is (a) anecdotal evidence and (b) "Google it". FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A science geek that distrusts so-called sciences that rely too much on Bayesian logic! The more vague and indecisive a field becomes, the more it has to rely on statistical methods. And the more it slides down the demarcation scale into pseudo science. And when you reach 50/50 for every hypothesis, the scientific method then just doesn't work properly any more. The more Bayesian logic it has to use, the more suspect a field, in my opinion. This includes a large part of the social sciences, psychology etc. It's not that the sincerest efforts have not been done to ensure objectivity in those fields, it's that the scientific method just doesn't work as well there as in say, physics. This is a real problem in (for example) politics. Want to do scientific research on the possible outcomes of your decisions? So many researches, so many opinions and in the end the politician still has to make the decision based on his 'gut feeling'. Not very scientific. And very post-modern. 50/50 is where science dies therefore, because it loses its ability to decide. I think therefore that a large part of what passes for science these days is actually pseudo science, or very susceptible to pseudo science. As for the issue at hand : Hand waving and appeals to Google are not enough for such a claim, but a worldwide social experiment that has been going on for decades and its results are. I don't think that you can provide stronger evidence for your position. You can continually dismiss it but I think that's just dishonest now. Maybe you just don't want to hear it. And yes, I challenge all egalitarian dogma. It's the same problem though : pseudo science hiding behind uber powerful ad hominems. Like you are now trying to pin racism on me. As for a scientific study that supports my position, firstly I can point to all the scientific works that propose that human behaviour has a biological basis. Then I can show you some actual academic papers that flat out deny that there is a biological basis to gender at all! Actually, you can just look up all academic papers from a feminist perspective. They all more or less try to deny the influence of biology/evolution on human behaviour. Do I have to start quoting? There's too many to list! All that this will show is how much the academic world is corrupted by egalitarian dogma. It's the replacement religion because the honest scientific view on the Universe is just too disturbing.TheAdversary (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Do I have to start quoting? There's too many to list!"
Yes, you would be more persuasive with a few well-chosen quotes. If there are too many to list, how about using your own selective ability, and show a short list of two or three significant works? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is amazing how physicists can do amazing things like discover the Higgs Boson without relying on statistical analysis. Oh wait. SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

From the University of Amsterdam, Research center for gender and sexuality : http://arcgs.uva.nl/research

'The Centre takes as a given the recognition that prescriptions of masculinity and femininity are far from universal and timeless. Rather, they are inherently unstable due to the particularities of time, place, and changing structures of power.'

This seems to be the dogma for academic gender-departments. Man and woman categories, as a classification system for humans, is a good heuristic. It works well in almost all cases, throughout history. There are many exceptions of course, but if you choose a classification system for this that has the least amount of exceptions, the optimal one, just classifying them as male or female is the way to go. The social structure never fundamentally changed this. It never changed the fundamental biological basis. Getting this backward is absurd. And they take this as a given! And statistics in physics is not the same as bayesian logic. In statistical mechanics, you don't know the motion of each particle individually, but you can make statistical predictions because those particles are simple. Bayesian logic needs to be applied when experiments themselves become hard to perform, and statistical analysis becomes a necessity to make a measurement at all. Physics doesn't have that problem ... but then there is quantum mechanics which does have that ... but it's still different.TheAdversary (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, "... but it's still different," eh? Do tell. Bear in mind that I'm a researcher in quantum physics when you decide what to say. Also, you still haven't provided actual evidence, so bravo. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Probability seems to be fundamental in nature. It also means we cannot understand it, because we've given up on trying to provide definitions for probability. We can statistically analyse random behaviour, but we cannot define or understand it. So when nature seems to be driven by probability, our understanding stops. So either you can shut up and calculate, or you can try to understand what probability really means and that is a very deep philosophical issue. It is different from let's call it pragmatic probability we encounter and apply in real life. Or is it? Is not all knowledge based on probability? Which is why I insinuated that it's different, but it's not. To hint at the dilemma. And I have provided actual evidence already, in spades. I can go to more academic gender departments and qoute mine some more nonsense and analyse it here, if you want.TheAdversary (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And that supports your claim that gender imbalance is largely down to inherent biology how? And how many of these academics you plan to cite are connected to Atheism+? What exactly does your evidence indicate? SpecialFFrog (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My argument should be clear by now. I'm sorry it is not perfect. Atheism+ resembles the mindset found in academia. You have to accept egalitarian/feminist dogma or fear being ostracized. That academic science is corrupt. And therefore, society.TheAdversary (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You continue to rattle off all of this anecdotal evidence and expect us to believe you. Where are the studies that show this to be the case? Where are your academic sources? Where is the actual evidence? Until you provide some of that, your words are of no more value to this discussion than the anecdotal evidence I provided earlier. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What you are calling "egalitarian dogma" is the idea that it is worthwhile to work towards eliminating racial and gender inequalities. Your basis for calling this "dogma" is the claim that such inequalities that remain are inherent, though you have provided no evidence to support that claim. SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that cannot be verified by others is anecdotal. Evidence that can be checked by everybody by themselves is not. I have not provided any evidence that cannot be checked by others. I already explained it above, so I'm not going to do it again. To call it anecdotal evidence is dishonest. You seem to have other requirements for evidence : it also needs to be 'academic', whatever that means. So if loafs of bread fall from the sky, and everybody sees it including you, and a loaf of bread even falls on your head are you not going to believe it simply because it was not written in a peer reviewed journal? That's obviously absurd. Peer review in academia exists to fulfil the requirement that the evidence needs to be tested by many people independently, to ensure honesty and objectivity. Not because it makes it 'academic'. Again, that is absurd. Maybe it is because almost every non-academic thinker turned out to be a crank, so your prejudice is understandable. In any case, what part of my argument relies on evidence that cannot be checked by others? I like to know, so I can correct the flaw.

And where is the scientific support for egalitarianism? There isn't any. Nature seems to be disturbingly anti-egalitarian! At least, the evidence for egalitarianism is minimal compared to the opposite. And trying to change this because you think it is 'good' is a moral position. You cannot provide evidence for that either. So my position has all the evidence in its favour. Yours has none.TheAdversary (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be a science geek, but you don't know anything about science. You also evidently don't know what 'anecdotal' means in the context you're using it in because you're simply wrong. Check a dictionary. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to definition, also known as appeal to the dictionary fallacy.TheAdversary (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Except it's not a fallacy if you're using the term 'anecdotal evidence' incorrectly because you don't know what it means. Then it's just correcting you. You say your evidence is something anyone can see, but clearly it isn't, since data points have been provided that show you to be incorrect. I would counter by saying that it's fairly obvious that institutional sexism within university STEM departments still forms a huge barrier to women entering STEM fields. What makes your 'fairly obvious' anecdotal evidence any more valid than mine? And yes, yours is anecdotal. You think it's not simply because you don't understand what 'anecdotal' means. - 184.175.47.103 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence for NDEs is "anecdotal" because it consists of stories that you can interpret to be meaningful as opposed to evidence obtained through experimentation or through rigorous analysis of data. The fact that anyone can look up these stories doesn't mean they aren't anecdotal. And I have already agreed that the evidence that inequality is all environmental is weak (though I'm unconvinced that it is weaker). So what kind of policy should a fair society embrace in that context? Whether nature is unequal is kind of irrelevant (and possibly a meaningless statement). SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because they have been implementing mechanisms to counter this for long enough now to asses the effectiveness of those mechanisms. And they didn't work. Otherwise women would be equally represented in those fields. And then more and more measures are necessary until you actually achieve it, and seeing that this society has as a founding principle that that is a good thing to do, they won't stop trying. But there is a risk : You are socially engineering to change male-female relations, so you are interfering with sex. Therefore you might actually disturb the species' ability to survive! Do you want to socially engineer that far? Can you take that risk? The consequences could be horrible! I know all of this is conjecture, but it is not an irrational fear. If you deny that there is a biological basis to gender, you think you can mould to your heart's content. But biology thinks otherwise. And then you have a problem, a very big one. Time will tell, I suppose. That is why I don't like present-day egalitarianism. It's blinded by its own sense of moral superiority, but there is a reason why nature was anti-egalitarian in the first place. We don't want social darwinism, but we also do not want to end up with 'survival of the weakest'. That would just lead to the degeneration of the species, with equally horrible consequences. Some balance is required, and I think that this society is swinging too far into the direction opposite to survival of the fittest. Maybe the next Holocaust is about the extermination of the strong, instead of the weak.TheAdversary (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of strawmen[edit]

"... or at least a straw-man version thereof (Atheism plus), in which feminists are leading a secret and powerful conspiracy to cut men's gonads off and/or spoil their fun, a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas." I smell irony. Is it not unfair enough to characterise MRA as a whole as a "misogynistic group" (aye, as if they were a group responsible for each other's conduct any more than feminism is), so much so that one needs to put words into their mouths for good measure? All the stress on evidence, sources and logical rigour notwithstanding, it doesn't seem to matter when it's happening to the right people, does it now. Save it if you plan on linking me here and here, for it's already plenty obvious that too many of us apply these principles most loosely and use "snark" as an excuse to put half-truths into articles. It's all too apparent that this site is not Wikipedia, but increasingly I'm starting to find that this isn't something to be proud of. --203.132.77.29 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What should be changed about the article? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 05:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Aside from FCP's question, have you ever met MRAs that weren't misogynistic? I haven't.
Also, if you don't like SPOV, exit's to your left. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
To FCP:
What about cleaning out sentences like the above and making room for well-sourced and verifiable facts, or even a claim-and-rebuttal section found on some articles if being responsible with what you write down is just a bit too much like Wikipedia?
To Castaigne:
Different people draw widely different lines between "misogynist" and "not misogynist". I think of one as someone who believes that women are inherently weak, incompetent, ill willed, etc. I have indeed met MRA who don't fall into this category. Both of our claims are anecdotal, but yours is a much bolder one which I don't think you can justify.
As for SPOV, I've already said what I had to say, which was some ranting I had meant to do for some time now. In short, I want to see less of the dishonesty and pretentiousness that is to use "I'm snarky" to pass opinions off as facts and to avoid the burden of proof. How on earth can you read it as "this is not Wikipedia, I don't like it, I'm about to bugger off"?
203.132.77.29 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

"...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)

Likewise, this gem: "But the phrase remains in use by those implacably opposed to the idea of being an atheist but not being an asshole, particularly Reddit anti-feminists, Gamergate and fans of Thunderf00t. Unironic use of the term is a fairly reliable indicator of an asshole." Wow. Because categorically calling all critics assholes is a total non-asshole thing to do. 84.44.215.56 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice and balanced as always. This article is a perfect example of why people don't want to associate with A+ and other groups of self righteous passive aggressive hypocrites. 92.11.246.22 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please show where Rationalwiki enforces, or even promotes, a neutral point of view. You appear to have this site confused with Wikipedia. You should go there.Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
True. The stated purpose is to Analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Document the full range of crank ideas (not our own). Explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism (again, not our own). Analyse and criticize treatments of these subjects in the media.
And also to shit on things and people we just don't like. Fuck them even if they make sense.Jackinthebox (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Atheism Plus and metaethics[edit]

So, what position does Atheism Plus take on metaethics? This is my biggest doubt about Atheism Plus (and secular humanism too) - they want to combine some set of ethical positions with atheism, but why choose those positions rather than others? Why should atheism be paired with their version of progressive ethics as opposed to some other competing ethical system or even just pure amoralism? If an atheist says, "I don't give a shit about social justice, I just care about my own self-interest, so I'm voting conservative because I like the tax cuts they are promising me", hell, why not? Are they advocating for a particular version of ethics simply out of a personal preference for that version of ethics (in which case, why should anyone who has different preferences care), or out of some belief that their chosen ethical positions are in some sense objectively superior to the alternatives? And if the later, what is the nature of this belief, and how do they justify it? (((Zack Martin))) 05:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Rawls argues that, given that there are no reasons to consider the vast majority of humans as substantively different from each other, it would make sense to presume that they should be treated equally (because treating them unequally would be arbitrary if there are no real differences). As such, promoting equality is probs a good idea.
And creating a stronger society (broadly speaking) helps the search for truth, which most atheists accept as an inherent good, and which seems the only way to truly achieve morality.
So I'd say that parts of Atheism+ might be considered inherent to morality, but not necessarily atheism. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 05:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
But does Atheism+ actually tie itself up with Rawlsianism? And, do Rawls' arguments actually succeed in establishing some form of objective basis for ethics? Rawls' views have been criticised from many different angles, everyone from Robert Nozick to feminists – Prof. David Reidy (University of Tennessee - Knoxville) gives a very brief summary here. Can they (or you) be sure that none of those criticisms succeed? Nozick was (I understand) an atheist, but he vocally rejected Rawls' arguments; how can one be sure that Rawls was right and Nozick wrong? Why should atheists choose Rawls over Nozick? (The best approach would be to choose whoever has the better argument; I think the more common approach is to choose whoever better agrees with one's pre-existing political tendencies.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are assuming that "Atheism+" is a coherent, monolithic philosophy, instead of a vague label or, at best, a rather disorganized splinter movement of "movement atheism". The summary of events goes like this: a number of people in the atheist blogosphere were interested/invested in causes other than atheism, they got attacked by people who thought that this was "bringing side issues into atheism", a couple of angry shitstorms later McCreight decided to have a label/corner for people who care for more stuff than just atheism (hence the "plus"), it was met with the same opposition as before and ran out of steam. --ZooGuard (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)