|
Post by sandwiches on Sept 4, 2012 19:54:41 GMT
Is anyone aware that there has been an atheist schism? www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venomA new movement, Atheism+, has prompted non-believers to spit venom at one another rather than at true believers A+ was born when Freethought blogger Jen McCreight (the mind behind Boobquake) made a passionate call for a "third wave" of atheism, one that extends atheist activism into progressive politics and calls for a part of the movement to be one where women can exist free from the harassment that has plagued women publicly involved in the atheist movement.The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of nuts", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag".It looks like things have deteriorated in the world of atheism but then again, Nietzsche referred to George Eliot and her ilk as "English flatheads"? (for not being real atheists?). This its website which one can join to attack other less advanced atheists promote advanced atheism: atheismplus.com/
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Sept 4, 2012 22:22:29 GMT
From the article - the wise and considered words of one Richard Carrier: Laugh? I nearly died... From comments section, a much more considered atheist response, to my mind:
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 4, 2012 22:35:40 GMT
I wasn't aware until you posted, but I followed the links through .... and through .... and found it most interesting. A few random thoughts:
1. Christians have had schisms and mutual hatred for centuries, why should the atheists miss out?
2. Is it a genuine groundswell movement, or just a few people starting a new discussion forum and blog? Remains to be seen.
3. It is hard to understand the battle lines. Atheism+ is supposed to be about humanism, women's rights, opposing homophobia and racism, and (of course) scepticism and freethought (nothing to complain about there). Yet at the same time, they seem to go out of their way to vilify Rebecca Watson for criticising Richard Dawkins and complaining about vile sexism (whereas I think she sounds quite reasonable). I think both sides of the schism believe the same things and behave in the same ways that are not totally consistent. (Perhaps they need to practice confession of sin?)
4. Richard Carrier is in there offering to help in his own modest way: "I am fully on board. I will provide any intellectual artillery they need to expand this cause and make it successful." (Though he apparently said some nasty things and has been attacked by some of the A+ crowd.)
5. People are people. Most of the nastiness on display is not a result of atheism any more than christian nastiness is a result of christianity, but is just people acting without restraint. Perhaps christianity offers more restraint for some of us. Perhaps committed humanism does too. But it seems there are both apparent christians and apparent humanists who don't really want to live according to their stated ethics?
Just a few random thoughts. Thanks for the links.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Sept 5, 2012 1:46:49 GMT
Poor Carrier. Faced with a life of academic irrelevance, he's so desperate to be part of something - anything! - that he'll jump on the first bandwagon into town without even checking its merits. Massimo Pigliucci has neatly skewered Atheism+ by pointing out that it is nothing more than secular humanism under a new label: ( Source). He also provides a summary of Carrier's hilariously irrational rant: That's right folks, Carrier is now personally identifying with this movement, affirming it as 'our movement' and raging against anyone who dares to disagree. All this despite the fact that Atheism+ has only just been proposed, there's no formal definition, and nobody knows what it's supposed to be yet. Superb. Pigliucci again: Ouch! ;D In a breathtaking display of moral cowardice, Carrier backflipped within hours and withdrew the comments: But it was too late. His little tirade (and its humiliating consequences) is a testament to the superficiality of his thinking. On Pigliucci's blog, a commenter replied:Pigliucci wasn't impressed either. Responding to another commenter: Ronald A. Lindsay made an excellent contribution on his blog, and like Pigliucci, he mentioned Carrier: This is quality entertainment. It's like watching the BNP, EDL and White Supremacist/Nationalists tear each other apart. Their tribalist tendencies are so overwhelming, they can never agree on a single identity and a common ethos. All it takes is one little issue to splinter them into a thousand break-away groups.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Sept 6, 2012 15:38:56 GMT
The funny thing about this is that it exposes the lie that for these people atheism is merely a "lack of belief in something." You might have different doctrines once you believe, but it is hard to understand how you can have a split in a group lacking beliefs. For the record, I am fully aware there are many atheists (maybe even a majority) for whom it is just a lack of beliefs. But those folks are not the ones who run atheist blogs (otherwise their blogs would be empty) or visit Dawkins or Carrier's website religiously. The comments above are reserved for the "truly atheist" (a breed similar in disposition to the "truly reformed") and it all is just too funny for words.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 6, 2012 19:10:34 GMT
The funny thing about this is that it exposes the lie that for these people atheism is merely a "lack of belief in something." You might have different doctrines once you believe, but it is hard to understand how you can have a split in a group lacking beliefs. As an atheist (one who really does fall into that category purely and solely because I lack any belief in God or gods) it annoys me that these warring clusters of ill-defined ideas and prejudices are being labelled "atheism". Atheism has zero to do with your attitude to women or your position on human rights or whatever it is that Artie Ziff/Carrier is frothing at the mouth about. Great. Unfortunately the Carriers of the world are doing such a great job of making the word synonymous with "pompous, fatuous, loudmouthed, bigoted douchebag" that for the first time in 25 years I've found myself seeking alternatives like "unbeliever" to try to avoid association with people like him.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 6, 2012 21:13:39 GMT
Unfortunately the Carriers of the world are doing such a great job of making the word synonymous with "pompous, fatuous, loudmouthed, bigoted douchebag" that for the first time in 25 years I've found myself seeking alternatives like "unbeliever" to try to avoid association with people like him. I have a lot of sympathy, Tim (for what that's worth). I often feel the same way about the word 'christian'. Perhaps Richard Carrier is becoming for atheism what Fred Phelps and a few others are for christianity?
|
|
mt
Clerk
Posts: 26
|
Post by mt on Sept 7, 2012 0:34:11 GMT
Atheism has zero to do with your attitude to women or your position on human rights or whatever it is that Artie Ziff/Carrier is frothing at the mouth about.
Admittedly, it's not simply Atheism, but Atheism+...
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Sept 7, 2012 13:11:31 GMT
If we understand the roots of the word atheism (a-theos-ism), what we have now is a battle of the a-(theos-ists) like Tim vs. the (a-theos)-ists who are much of the internet atheist community. For the a-(theos-ists), it really is a lack of belief in some deity. For the (a-theos)-ists, it is an active belief in no deity that often morphs into an active dislike of a deity they claimed two paragraphs ago did not exist. Given the latter are often disporportionately former fundamentalists, I tend to think they are just doing the same thing for a different team. You can take the boy out of the fundies, but you can't always take the fundie out of the boy.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Sept 7, 2012 14:13:22 GMT
^^ An astute observation.
It intrigues me that atheists have chosen to split over feminism, and even more that Atheism+ has chosen feminism as its rallying cry.
Any ideology which excludes one of the two human genders is unlikely to promote harmony.
It would have made more sense to focus on a concept that includes and unites all humans. Oh wait - that's already been done, and it's called secular humanism.
Looks like Atheism+ really did miss the boat.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Sept 9, 2012 13:52:43 GMT
^^ An astute observation. It intrigues me that atheists have chosen to split over feminism, and even more that Atheism+ has chosen feminism as its rallying cry. Any ideology which excludes one of the two human genders is unlikely to promote harmony. It would have made more sense to focus on a concept that includes and unites all humans. Oh wait - that's already been done, and it's called secular humanism. Looks like Atheism+ really did miss the boat. What intruiges and frankly bemuses me is that a single issue position such as atheism should take a stance on any other topic.Individual atheists can and do have positions on the entire gamut of topics,but it is absurd to pronounce an 'atheist stance' on anything other than the existence or not of god(s).
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Sept 10, 2012 3:53:41 GMT
Yes, the idea of a uniquely atheist feminism is frankly bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Sept 10, 2012 8:29:17 GMT
Unfortunately,at least for atheists who are like me,as atheism gains more traction in the modern world it seems inevitable it will attract people peddling this sort of nonesense.The problem as ever is human nature
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Sept 10, 2012 21:52:06 GMT
What we're seeing is basically the growth of a new religion. This is a phenomenon of organisations: as they gain in influence and become a "brand" someone is going to want to claim ownership. Now there are atheist conventions, books and speaking engagements, which must generate significant income and influence for leaders of the movement. This will only work if there is new content to fill the books and speeches; hence people like Dick Carrier load it up with their own nostrums, as have Dawkins and Peter Singer.
As for what the word means: it will mean whatever people want it to mean. After all, "atheists" once meant Christians, who wouldn't follow Roman gods.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 10, 2012 22:00:18 GMT
What we're seeing is basically the growth of a new religion. Please, no. It's a small dispute in the online world between two groups of vocal ant-theists. But whatever else it may be it is NOT "a new religion". That's a patent misuse of that word.
|
|