Atheism Plus

[Storm]

really, humanism is a system of ethics based on the idea that human beings have inherent value. Some religions speak to why human beings have value; some of them even proclaim that nothing has worth or value apart from what is bestowed on it by God, so anyone working within that framework would have to be a religious humanist if they're going to be a humanist. Humanism basically says "recognize the value in people and act accordingly." It doesn't dictate what we have to believe about the source of that value.

That was what I was saying. Secular humanism has the qualifier for a reason.

 

[lunakilo]

Atheism + has arrived, and this is its manifesto:


According to Richard Carrier at freethoughtblogs:

" Do you identify as an atheist? Then I can’t insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

Anyone else a little troubled by this? I never had the impression that there was too much freethought in atheism, or that we needed to enforce conformity of opinion among nonbelievers. I have no problem with atheists supporting a social agenda, and the aims of Atheism + seem valid. But I'm not so glad to see atheists demonizing one another just like religious people have done for millennia.

-Nato

That sounds horrible.

That is like "Do you believe in the existence of Autralia, and do you feel that people should be responsible and wear a seatbelt when driving a car, and should never drink and drive. Then Autralialism+ may be your thing.

So what do you say, will you join us or stay with Autralialism Less and all the irrisponsible drunk drivers?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems likely to me that this atheist + movement will be short lived.

I'm worried that it will be as well, but I wish it wasn't.

Actually, let me re-phrase that: if the "Atheism+" label gets dropped, I'm fine with that. However, I really like the idea of getting more atheists involved in social justice issues, and I really like stepping up things from the "being non-religious doesn't make me a bad person" message in secular humanism to the more positive "my atheism helps me to be a good person" message of Atheism+. If those things get retained, I'm not picky about what we call it.

 

[Quagmire]

Not sure why atheism would be a requirement for membership in that club.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was what I was saying. Secular humanism has the qualifier for a reason.

Yes... it's for people who don't think that the worth of a person is derived from God or from religious values. It doesn't mean you can't be a secular humanist unless you're an atheist.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm worried that it will be as well, but I wish it wasn't.

Actually, let me re-phrase that: if the "Atheism+" label gets dropped, I'm fine with that. However, I really like the idea of getting more atheists involved in social justice issues, and I really like stepping up things from the "being non-religious doesn't make me a bad person" message in secular humanism to the more positive "my atheism helps me to be a good person" message of Atheism+. If those things get retained, I'm not picky about what we call it.

I'd like to see it go somewhere too. I just doubt it will.

 

[Storm]

Yes... it's for people who don't think that the worth of a person is derived from God or from religious values. It doesn't mean you can't be a secular humanist unless you're an atheist.

I disagree, the Wiki backs me up. Until you can cite an opposing authority, let's not derail the thread further.

 

[idav]

No flavor of humanism is dependent on religion.

Humanism is just a philosophy that religious adherents are free to go by. When you throw secular in there it makes me think separation of church and state. Secular vs religious laws. So you can be secular and theist though most traditions wouldn't exactly recommend it.

 

[Storm]

Humanism is just a philosophy that religious adherents are free to go by. When you throw secular in there it makes me think separation of church and state. Secular vs religious laws. So you can be secular and theist though most traditions wouldn't exactly recommend it.

Yeah, I know. I'm a humanist. I'm a secularist. But I'm not a secular humanist.

 

[idav]

Yeah, I know. I'm a humanist. I'm a secularist. But I'm not a secular humanist.

So your a theistic secular humanist? Oh don't we love labels.

 

[Storm]

So your a theistic secular humanist? Oh don't we love labels.

No, I'm a panentheistic humanist.

 

[Infinitum]

I've heard some stories about Atheism Plus and their connection to Freethoughtblog. One of the bloggers wrote a blog post that included mild criticism towards feminists and he was kicked out from the site. They really are all in for "with us or against us" in a very aggressive way that I find very concerning. I can't help drawing a connection between them and radical Christians or Muslims. When you take your idea too seriously, you're doing it wrong.

In addition to that the label seems entirely redundant to me. Atheism is Atheism. In the current situation where a large part of the population still doesn't know what Atheism really means, adding another nearly identical label has the potential to turn it all into chaos. Would any of you Atheists want that when you tell a new friend that you're an Atheist, their first response is "oh, you're a Feminist then?" These two are different things and although many ideologies are naturally connected, I think it's harmful to mix them like that just because no one tells you not to (although now I do).

This is a topic I've felt strongly about long before Atheism Plus showed up. We have to learn talking about things with their proper names. Being an Atheist means you don't believe in any gods. End of story. Are you an Atheist with strong Humanistic ideals? Then you probably are a Secular Humanist in addition to being an Atheist. These two ideologies address entirely different things: the other addresses religion, the other societal problems. It's as simple as that. It's not rocket science, which increases my astonishment over how many people, many whom should know better, talk about Atheism as if it automatically would include this wide range of other ideologies.

There! Be warned. I could rant on about this for a long time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In addition to that the label seems entirely redundant to me. Atheism is Atheism. In the current situation where a large part of the population still doesn't know what Atheism really means, adding another nearly identical label has the potential to turn it all into chaos.

FWIW, the label comes out of precisely that concern: it's supposed to express that it's "atheism plus something else".

 

[Infinitum]

Yes, Penguin, I read your post earlier in the thread understand where you're coming from, but I think there are much more downsides than upsides to using labels like that. My problem with Atheism Plus in particular lies in the people behind the new movement and now already you see a problem that's rising from the label. They want all Atheists to join their cause. It doesn't sound too bad, does it, it's just basic Humanist ideals? However, look closely at the quote (emphasis added):

According to Richard Carrier at freethoughtblogs:

" Do you identify as an atheist? Then I can’t insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

These people are demonizing other Atheists. They promote black-and-white thinking, where theirs is the good side and the rest is the bad. The quote implies that if you agree with their ideas, you are to be called an Atheist+. If you don't, you're irrational and sexist. Does this sound like free thought? And more, does it sound rational? I point you once again to the similarities between certain religious movements and the mind set here. Atheism is strongly connected to intellectual freedom. What we see here is Atheism Minus, not Plus.

The way I see it that a group of people who've met each other in the Atheist community have banded together into their own Secular Humanist club. Not being able - or not willing to - see it as Humanism they've renamed Atheism and are now trying to hijack a label that's never been and never should be determined by a limited number of people. It may look good at the first glance, but the longer you (I) think about it the less it makes any sense. Here's one: Christianity Plus. From now on all Christians are expected to vote Republican. If you don't, you're an evil and misinformed person.

We name things to recognize them. A good definition is one with one clear interpretation. If you add to it, you generally attach another word to describe that addition. Physics => Nuclear Physics. Music => Folk Music. I really think that when mature, informed people misuse terms they do it deliberately in order to distort, hide or manipulate something. You're miscommunicating what you're standing for and are very likely to confuse people with it. Whether it be because of dishonesty or blatant carelessness, I really don't like seeing people doing it.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Atheism + has arrived, and this is its manifesto:


According to Richard at freethoughtblogs:

" Do you identify as an atheist? Then I can’t insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

Anyone else a little troubled by this? I never had the impression that there was too much freethought in atheism, or that we needed to enforce conformity of opinion among nonbelievers. I have no problem with atheists supporting a social agenda, and the aims of Atheism + seem valid. But I'm not so glad to see atheists demonizing one another just like religious people have done for millennia.

-Nato

This seems like an ill attempt to tell (or group atheist into one big giant happy family) atheist what not and what to believe or simply say atheism+ stands for this! When it doesn't really stand for much of anything at all. Seems like there is some division amongst the atheist community for someone to make an article about a topic such as this. It's kind of like asking a group of people what their favorite food is and since they can't all agree on one thing they decide on peanut butter and jelly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, Penguin, I read your post earlier in the thread understand where you're coming from, but I think there are much more downsides than upsides to using labels like that. My problem with Atheism Plus in particular lies in the people behind the new movement and now already you see a problem that's rising from the label. They want all Atheists to join their cause. It doesn't sound too bad, does it, it's just basic Humanist ideals? However, look closely at the quote (emphasis added):

These people are demonizing other Atheists. They promote black and white thinking, where theirs is the good side and the rest is the bad. The text implies that if you agree with their ideas, you are to be called an Atheist+. If you don't, you're irrational and sexist. Does this sound like free thought? And more, does it sound rational? I point you once again to the similarities between certain religious movements and the mind set here. Atheism is strongly connected to intellectual freedom. What we see here is Atheism Minus, not Plus.

This person, not "these people". I think it's unwise for you to generalize about all of Atheism+ from the attitude of one blogger. Most of the other things I've read about Atheism+ have gone to great lengths to say that their movement isn't for everyone, that they're not trying to re-brand all atheism, but trying to carve out a niche for some, but not all, atheists.

One analogy I heard from a proponent of Atheism+ was with a group called Atheists Helping the Homeless. AHH has been around for a number of years and has generally gotten a very positive reception. Even though they're doing good in the "name" of atheism, nobody complains that they're making all the atheists who don't participate with them look bad.

The way I see it that a group of people who've met each other in the Atheist community have banded together into their own Secular Humanist club. Not being able - or not willing to - see it as Humanism they've renamed Atheism and are now trying to hijack a label that never been and never should be determined by a limited number of people. It may look good at the first glance, but the longer you (I) think about it the less it makes any sense. Here's one: Christianity Plus. From now on all Christians are expected to vote Republican. If you don't, you're an evil and misinformed person.

I think you're reading way too much into an article from one overzealous blogger.

If you're serious about learning what this movement is about, a good place to start would be AtheismPlus.com. From their FAQ:

Does A+ represent the official atheist position on social justice?
No. Not all atheists are interested in advocating for social justice. Many atheists choose instead to focus on other worthy endeavors such as science education, skepticism in medicine, or the separation of church and state. Many atheists do not consider their atheism particularly important, nor do they necessarily connect their atheism to any other positions they do or do not hold. And even among those atheists who are interested in promoting social justice, not all agree that the issues focused on by Atheism Plus are the most important ones or that the supporters of Atheism Plus are addressing these issues the right way. There are as many perspectives on social justice, its meaning, its import, the current state of its various aspects, and how best to promote it (if at all) as there are people. All are welcome to start, support, oppose, or ignore groups like Atheism Plus. However, supporters of Atheism Plus are not obligated to provide a forum for their opposition.

What if I don’t want to participate?
Those who choose not to use the Atheism Plus designation are not automatically considered supporters of bigotry. An “us and them” understanding is implicit whenever a group of any kind forms, but the “them” in this case is not monolithic. It is composed of individuals and groups who range from the supportive but uninvolved, to the neutral, to those opposed on principle, to the unabashedly bigoted, hateful, and discriminatory. The “us” in this case are the individuals and groups who are interested in seeing what an association of atheists working against bigotry, hatred, and discrimination can accomplish when given their own spaces in which to develop ideas. This position should be understood as distinct from the “with us or against us” position endorsed by some early proponents of Atheism Plus–a position which has been rejected by general consensus. (Anyone who decides to do so may attempt to speak for Atheism Plus, but whether their ideas find any support with the rest of the group is a different matter.)

[...]

Doesn’t Humanism cover this stuff?
Atheism Plus embraces humanism. One of the formulations of Atheism Plus is “Atheism + Humanism + Skepticism”. However, to quote an article from the American Humanist Association website, “the humanist movement has never considered atheism (construed as a rejection of all concepts of God) as a necessary part of the humanist outlook.” Such a rejection is a necessary part of the atheistic outlook. Humanism has a rich tradition of promoting ethical living, but many people interested in changing minds find that it does not adequately stress the reality that there are almost certainly no gods and that this is almost certainly the only world in which we will ever exist.

FAQ | Atheism Plus

We name things to recognize them. A good definition is one with one clear interpretation. If you add to it, you generally attach another word to describe that addition. Physics => Nuclear Physics. Music => Folk Music. I really think that when mature, informed people misuse terms they do it deliberately in order to distort, hide or manipulate something. You're miscommunicating what you're standing for and are very likely to confuse people with it. Whether it be because of dishonesty or blatant carelessness, I really don't like seeing people doing it.

I don't think that the name is a matter of miscommunication, dishonesty or carelessness. I think it fits just fine. I'm really not sure why you would say it doesn't.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

These people are demonizing other Atheists. They promote black-and-white thinking, where theirs is the good side and the rest is the bad. The quote implies that if you agree with their ideas, you are to be called an Atheist+. If you don't, you're irrational and sexist. Does this sound like free thought? And more, does it sound rational? I point you once again to the similarities between certain religious movements and the mind set here. Atheism is strongly connected to intellectual freedom. What we see here is Atheism Minus, not Plus.

I agree. It's one thing to criticize the media for making it seem like atheism is one big old-boys' club by concentrating on the same four authors all the time. It's quite another to intimidate nonbelievers into toeing a party line.

And I'm sorry, but the link-to-a-link in the article mentions a woman being asked, "Why do you call yourself a feminist instead of a humanist?" Would anyone be stupid enough to actually ask that?

-Nato

 

[Father Heathen]

Meh, I think Super Atheism Turbo is better.

 

[Revoltingest]

I practice retro-atheism. It's like nouveau-atheism, but more retro.....& no cheese.

 

[Falvlun]

Atheism + has arrived, and this is its manifesto:


According to Richard Carrier at freethoughtblogs:

" Do you identify as an atheist? Then I can’t insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

I dislike the blackmailing nature of that bolded portion. Unless I join your group, I'm a cruel, irrational sexist? No thank you.

While I suspect most atheists uphold most of those values, I don't think we should be blackmailed into joining a militant atheist group just to prove it.