A rough approximation of my argument in this post.
This is the second in a series of three posts about the development of a new wave of atheism, called Atheism Plus. In this post, I will address the arguments of those who have been most vocal in opposition to atheism plus. The first post, which examines the foundations of atheist ethics, can be found here. The second post, which builds a philosophical case for the connection of social justice activism to secularism, can be found here. If you haven’t heard of Atheism Plus, you should look it up at Blag Hag. This post, including the comments, is a good place to start.
Dear haters,
I’ve spent more time than I’d care to admit during the last few weeks arguing with many of you on twitter, and I’m still fairly perplexed by your arguments. I have seen some valid criticisms of atheism plus, but most of them have come either from other social justice atheists or from completely outside the movement, none of them have employed the word “feminazi”. In the absence of good arguments, however, I have noticed some observable patterns in the fallacies that you have employed, and so I’m going to take a some time to address these here.
The most common criticism of atheism plus is that it amounts to some kind of religion. You have accused us of having dogma, you have predicted that we will somehow purge the unfaithful, and perhaps most hilariously, you have compared PZ Myers with the pope. The root of these claims seems to be the fact that atheism plus makes positive normative and factual claims, rather than the singular negative truth-claim (“There is no god”) of dictionary atheism. In making this argument, you have effectively equated any sort of positive belief with religious faith, arguing that atheism must absolutely not move beyond the non-existence of a supreme being.
Isn’t this just a little bit preposterous? If the only acceptable philosophical position for atheists to entertain is doubt, and any violation of this rule constitutes a form of religious faith, then we’ll have to purge all enthusiasm for science from atheist settings. Science makes positive truth-claims that go beyond mere doubt. “Human beings evolved from apes” is one example, as are “The earth orbits the sun”, and even “the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two other sides”. You cannot have science unless you are prepared to move beyond mere doubt, and take the epistemic and metaphysical risks of associating something positive. Of course, few people complain that scientists such as PZ Myers and Neil Degrasse Tyson are injecting religion into atheist meetings; the propositions I have cited above have all been rigorously supported using logical and empirical arguments. Atheism plus wants to do the same thing with ethics-our positions are the result of observation and argument, not dogma. If you disagree with our conclusions, then you are welcome to ask us to show our work, and to point out errors in our logic. I, for one, welcome such criticism so long as it is phrased clearly and politely. But it’s just plain silly to automatically equate all positive belief with religious faith.
Now, I realize that “NO U” is a bit of a cliche on the internet, but it really does seem that the religiosity you accuse us of might be much better describe you. More than that, I would argue that the vitriolic opposition to atheism plus actually exemplifies the very worst of religion. If you are right about us, and we are actually basing our ethical system on something akin to religious faith, then as a religion, atheism plus is really quite innocuous. We would simply be living according to a religious world-view and using it to inform social justice activism. This is a form of religion that is entirely inoffensive and even respectable to many atheist activists. Only hard-liners like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (not even the late Christopher Hitchens) have a desire to make all forms of private religion their enemy. I would argue, however, that the arguments and tactics you have deployed against atheism plus associate you with the very worst kind of religion-the bullying, uncompromising and violent forms of religion that the atheist movement is most concerned with.
The first characteristic you share with religious extremists is that you insist that others exercise their atheism only on your terms. You have made it abundantly clear that you believe atheism is ONLY the non-belief in god, and I really do mean it when I say that is fair enough. Nobody is requiring you to be involved with atheism plus, and you are well within your rights to voice opposition to our social and political conclusions both within and outside the movement. But that, apparently, is not enough for you. Opposition to atheism plus has coalesced not around opposition to its political conclusions, but around opposition to the very idea of a space within atheism to discuss social justice issues. Rather than accepting that there is a part of the atheist movement that you do not agree with, and honing your debating skills to contest their ethical positions, you have instead insisted that nobody should even talk about social justice in an atheist context.
This kind of narrow-mindedness is also known as dogma, and it is directly at odds with the basic idea of free thought. It is a position that seeks to limit the scope of discussion, and to silence opposing perspectives before they have even had a chance to make their point. You may defend this position on the grounds that the basic definition of atheism does not include any provision for social justice, but the simple fact is that most of us don’t really care about the basic definition of atheism. Words are human constructs, which should not be given any authority over how we live our lives. Your insistence that everybody should conform to your definition of atheism because that is what is found in the dictionary, merely turns the dictionary into a new authoritative holy book. And frankly, the bible, the Quran, and the Torah all have better storytelling and moral guidance to offer than the dictionary.
The second parallel between opposition to atheism plus and the worst forms of religion is far more serious than the first, because it concerns how this dogma is enforced. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church enforced its dogmas through acts of unspeakable violence intended to terrorize its enemies into silence. While you have not even approached cruelty of that magnitude, your strategy for dealing with your ideological enemies is the same as that of the Spanish Inquisition. Rather than engage in good faith with the ideas of atheism plus with the hope of proving them wrong, many of you have chosen instead to attack the movement’s members in the most personal and violent manner that can be managed over the internet. Rape threats, personal attacks on peoples’ appearance, and even harassment of the families of bloggers have all been used at one time or another. Jennifer McCreight, a prominent atheist who is far from thin-skinned, has been forced to stop blogging because of the daily harassment. Rather than raise valid criticisms of her ideas, you have attacked her personally until she was forced to withdraw. And then you celebrated. In adopting such vile strategies to silence those you disagree with rather than addressing their disagreement, you have associated yourself with some of the worst political and religious fundamentalists.
I am well aware that my criticisms here do not apply to every person who opposes atheism plus. There are some who are able to respectfully air non-dogmatic criticisms of the movement, and I hope we continue to hear from them. The people to whom this post is addressed, however, should know who they are. Far from defending the purity of atheism, scepticism and free-thought, you are making a mockery of all three by using vicious bullying tactics to silence those who do not conform to your narrow interpretation of what it means to be an atheist. In doing so, you mimic some of its most objectionable attributes of fundamentalist religion. It was your toxic influence that prompted the creation of atheism plus, and it is your reaction to its creation that confirms the need for it. We’re well rid of you.
D4M10N
September 29, 2012
No purges here at A+
http://www.change.org/petitions/secular-coalition-for-america-remove-justin-vacula-from-a-leadership-position-in-the-pa-chapter-of-sca
http://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/perhaps-it-is-time-that-dj-grothe-resign-as-the-president-of-the-jref/
Falsum
September 30, 2012
D4M10N,
You have referenced three events. The first is a blogger being removed from an online community because his work was not up to their standards. The second and third are both efforts, in the form of a blog post in the former and a petition in the latter, to have people removed from paid positions due to bigoted views. If you are suggesting that any of these three things somehow constitutes an ideological purge, then you should do some reading about ACTUAL purges that have occurred in history, get some perspective, and apologize.
Also, I’ve done you the favour of consolidating your three comments into one. Next time you comment here, please don’t spam me.
emcada
September 30, 2012
You’re post is totally wrong and a complete misrepresentation of the opposition to Atheism+. First off, the opposition doesn’t care if you and you’re friends are going to talk about left-wing political issues with your group of friends. That’s fine with us. What bugs the rest of us is the relabeling of atheism as something that is solely a left wing political stance. It’s not even the good kind of left wing political stance either. That’s our problem. Why should atheism be the direct end result of the left wing politics of the FreeThoughtBloggers, the very people that somehow think that a discussion over coffee is sexualising a woman? There’s also the whole matter of treating every supposed rape threat as if it was done by an atheist? What evidence can you and the rest of the movement bring forward to prove that these were all atheists? Finally, has it ever occurred to any of you that these people aren’t being serious? Hell just recently I got some stupid death threat from someone online but I thought nothing of it because that’s essentially what online threats are: an empty threat. It’s not like they’re ever going to follow through with it anyways.
Secondly, our opposition isn’t some forceful attempt to silence any of you. A lot of the discussions I have seen have been very civil people from the opposition and just plain jackassery from the atheism+ crowd. There’s PZ Myers’ remark to everyone who decides to stay away from the atheism+ label. He essentially set up the “us vs them” thought that split the atheist movement and every atheist out there. His “us vs them” idea is essentially if you aren’t apart of the “New Atheism” then you’re Hitler, a misogynist, racist, sexist, asshole which is just a giant unfounded accusation. Just because someone doesn’t agree with left wing politics doesn’t mean that they’re some KKK member. It just means they don’t agree with the whole idea. There’s also Carrier’s reaction to the commentor that refused the atheism plus label publicly on one of the FreeThought blogs. Finally, the “us vs them” mentality perpetuated by PZ Myers and every other FreeThoughtBlogger has in fact censored the opposition. Now atheism plus members are more than willing to think that if someone is going against the atheism plus movement they must be misogynist, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Once they think that, then they’re going to shut off their brains to anything that says their ideas are wrong because the opposition obviously doesn’t care about the rights of everybody else. You have demonstrated such mentality in your own post here.
If you don’t believe any of what I just wrote, then I invite you to browse the atheismplus hashtag on twitter to see for yourself. A lot of the stuff tweeted is a valid criticism of the atheismplus movement.
Falsum
September 30, 2012
“What bugs the rest of us is the relabeling of atheism as something that is solely a left wing political stance”
We aren’t doing this. Nobody in atheism plus is suggesting that the entirety of the atheist movement needs to re-define itself to accord with our political beliefs. We are instead creating a separate space within atheism for those who are interested in discussing social justice issues. Atheism plus is, to put it in the words of Jen McCreight, like an atheist knitting club: Just because a lot of atheists want to get together and knit doesn’t mean that we want to re-label atheism to be about knitting.
“Why should atheism be the direct end result of the left wing politics of the FreeThoughtBloggers”
“…somehow think that a discussion over coffee is sexualising a woman”
“…treating every supposed rape threat as if it was done by an atheist”
These are all strawmen, so I’m just going to move on.
“Finally, has it ever occurred to any of you that these people aren’t being serious?”
Supposing I punched you in the face, and when you got upset, I said “Don’t worry, bro! I’m only joking!”. You wouldn’t be very pleased. That is essentially the move you are making here. Whether it is intended seriously or not, any kind of harassment that drives a prominent blogger off of the internet is a serious matter. A rape threat is not a funny joke-it can trigger very serious and very real emotional responses in those that read it. And in many cases, it is intended to do just that. See the Amazing Atheist’s meltdown if you don’t believe me.
“His “us vs them” idea is essentially if you aren’t apart of the “New Atheism” then you’re Hitler, a misogynist, racist, sexist, asshole which is just a giant unfounded accusation.”
You’re going to have to provide some kind of evidence that Myers suggested this. If and when you do, I’ll be the first to disagree with him. More likely, you’re misinterpreting statements he has made that say that if you disagree with some of the premises of atheism plus, then you are an asshole. This is true in some cases. If you disagree that women should be able to feel safe and welcome in atheist communities, for example, then you are not a particularly admirable person. That’s what PZ was getting at.
In any case, the “gotcha” style of argumentation that is common to atheism plus’s opponents is fallacious at its core. Simply pointing out that somebody within atheism plus said something you don’t like is a pretty clear example of the associative fallacy.
I have spent a great deal of time on the atheism plus hashtag, and been in a lot of arguments. I haven’t seen a single valid criticism of atheism plus.
Iamcuriousblue
September 30, 2012
“We aren’t doing this. Nobody in atheism plus is suggesting that the entirety of the atheist movement needs to re-define itself to accord with our political beliefs. We are instead creating a separate space within atheism for those who are interested in discussing social justice issues.”
If this is really all you people are doing, then I think most of your critics would have no issue with it at all. I certainly wouldn’t. But you and I both know this is not the only thing that the A+/FTB/Skepchick crowd are doing. If it’s just about you going off and doing your own thing, then why the Scientology-like attacks on outspoken critics, which Justin Vacula is being treated to now? Clearly, the fastest way for A+ to be left to do it’s own thing would be to just drop the drama and move on. Guaranteed that the vast majority of your critics would move on to various other issues after a month or two of this. Seen it before in many a previous war between internet factions. Perhaps A+ fears being ignored more than it does being reviled?
“If you disagree that women should be able to feel safe and welcome in atheist communities, for example, then you are not a particularly admirable person.”
I think the vast majority of people on all sides of the issue want women to feel safe and welcome in atheist/secular communities, there’s just significant disagreement over what means need to be undertaken to achieve that end. And I’ll also point out that one of the silliest bits of A+ drama was directed toward a woman who wore a t-shirt saying she felt “safe and welcome” at TAM. How ironic is that?
emcada
September 30, 2012
If you aren’t relabeling atheism, then why are you calling yourself Atheism+? Why the new symbol? Why not Atheists for Positive Social Change or some variation of the name? Why are you calling yourselves the third wave of atheism? If you aren’t relabeling atheism, then why are you doing all of these things?
Your analogy of you punching me in the face being the equivalent of some rape threat on the internet is horribly wrong. You’re comparing apples and oranges. You ignored my example of when I got threatened on the internet. It’s just an empty threat. There’s no harm that can potentially come from it at all.
“We’re creating a safe space to talk about social justice issues”
Seriously what’s up with this victimizing? A safe space to talk about social justice issues? Really? If you want to talk about social justice issues run a blog, start a forum, or create a facebook group. Don’t start a new wave of something just because you want to talk about social justice issues.
“If you disagree that women should be able to feel safe and welcome in atheist communities”
No one in the atheist community thinks that women shouldn’t feel safe and welcome. Yet even then, every one in the Atheism+ community thinks that everyone that doesn’t adhere to this notion is some sort of immoral scum.
“You’re going to have to provide evidence of this”
You just did. That is it right there. It’s that kind of mentality that makes Atheism+ so divisive.
Oh and your claim that everyone not apart of the A+ movement is like the Spanish Inquistion is some sort of Godwin’s Law. You’re rationalization of it is ridiculous
“My argument is that the strategy and the effect is the same: internet trolls, like Catholic zealots, seek to bully their opponents into submission rather than address their arguments.”
You’re victimizing yourself and everyone else apart of the A+ movement and are in fact making a strawman against everyone else that’s against it. Have you even bothered to read any blog post criticizing the A+ movement or watched a vlog that criticizes A+ at all? Or are you going to take the religious route and say “Everything I say and agree with is the absolute truth and everyone that disagrees with me must be stupid!”? If you can question the existence of a deity and the legitimacy of a religion, why not question your own movement?
Iamcuriousblue
September 30, 2012
What emcada said. And, seriously, Falsum – comparing opposition to Atheism+ to the Spanish Inquisition has to evoke some special subset of Godwin’s Rule for it’s sheer hyperbole. Just who is coming after Aplussers in any way that could *remotely* be considered Inquisition like. Go off, have fun with your own little clique, pursue your idiosyncratic version of “social justice” to your heart’s delight. But don’t demand the allegiance of the entire atheist community toward your pet project, and don’t start trying to create purges (see above) just because people criticize you. You wonder where the “hate” comes from? Take a close look at the above-mentioned actions. Perhaps the A+ enfants terrible are just doing it for attention, but it is quite an annoying way to get it.
Also, do you really wish to conflate serious critics of A+ with random misogynist trolls who obsess over Jen McCreight and Rebecca Watson? Please. You do realize, of course, that your side of the issue has equally aggressive trolls of their own.
Falsum
September 30, 2012
Iamcuriousblue,
I suggest you re-read the paragraph about the Spanish Inquisition. I make it very clear that I am not comparing internet harassment with what they did. Not in terms of magnitude of harm, anyway. My argument is that the strategy and the effect is the same: internet trolls, like Catholic zealots, seek to bully their opponents into submission rather than address their arguments.
As for the conflation of “serious critics” with “random misogynist trolls”, my experience has shown that there is only a very thin line between the two. Most effective criticism of atheism plus comes from either social justice activists who are not atheists, or from social justice atheists who disagree with the approach taken by atheism plus (Rebecca Watson is among these). Criticism from atheists who are not social justice activists has been at best completely moronic, and at worst downright abusive.
Your last comment, about equally aggressive trolls of our own, is patently false. I may be inclined to take it more seriously if you can show me an example of a threat of violence, or cruel appearance or gender-based insult that has been directed at a critic of atheism plus. We might be aggressive at times, but I’ve never seen any on our side of the line stoop that low.
Iamcuriousblue
September 30, 2012
“As for the conflation of “serious critics” with “random misogynist trolls”, my experience has shown that there is only a very thin line between the two.”
No, your need to demonize any and all opponents has “shown” this. This trope that anybody who does not agree with A+ or FTB’s particular version of feminist ideology is part of some grand misogynist block is simply the “us vs them” mentality of this clique in action.
Criticism from atheists who are not social justice activists has been at best completely moronic, and at worst downright abusive.
Says you. If you think that the entirety of the criticism of the “us vs them” mentality endemic in A+ is “completely moronic”, that says more about your listening ability than it does the words of A+ critics. And the claim that one has to be a “social justice activist” to have a valid opinion about A+ is simply silly. It also would probably rule out the majority of A+ proponents, who are by and large keyboard warriors rather than “activists” of any kind.
“Your last comment, about equally aggressive trolls of our own, is patently false. I may be inclined to take it more seriously if you can show me an example of a threat of violence, or cruel appearance or gender-based insult that has been directed at a critic of atheism plus. We might be aggressive at times, but I’ve never seen any on our side of the line stoop that low.”
So the names Setar, Sally Strange, LeftSidePositive, etc. don’t ring a bell. No, no aggressive trolls on your side….
Let’s start with this petition as an example of the FTB/A+ crowd once again acting in a completely belligerent and obsessive manner toward outspoken critics. (A more mature movement would put the drama aside and try to actually build a movement that focuses on the positive rather than demonizing critics and battling dragons.)
In other incidents, I could mention with Setar’s IRL mob action against John the Other, tearing down all of his posters where had legal permission to post them, a clear act of censorship. Setar et al knew they were in the wrong, because they beat feet when the police arrived. (There’s an entire video of this if you wish to see it.) That’s an escalation way above and beyond an online war of words.
In terms of “cruel insults”, one could look at practically any FTB or A+ comment thread where a critic shows up. Insults are the first line of engagement, rather than actually engaging with any point of argument at all. (You people seem to have this bizarre line that as long as nobody uses the word “bitch” or “faggot” in anger, all manner of attack and insult is all for the good.)
ChemicalSerenity
October 1, 2012
Indeed. This is one thing that has always made me cringe about the idea of a “safe space” on public forums. If you want a genuinely safe space, make it a private forum that operates with strict rules on an invite-only basis. No worries about interlopers, no question about the operational parameters.
Creating a draconian, heavily-moderated forum in a *public* web space (like the /r/atheismplus forum on reddit) that routinely displays vitriol against others but silences all dissent is not a “safe space”. It’s an echo chamber that wants to be publically seen, but never questioned.
A zone of conspicuous exclusion.
To be clear, safe spaces are for people who want to be safe. Zones of conspicuous exclusion are for people who want to expound their ideology, and do so by consciously and explicitly enforcing ingroup/outgroup separation.
But A+ is not at all about exclusion, purity purging or us-vs-them… right?
atheismplusone
October 1, 2012
> The most common criticism of atheism plus is that it amounts to some kind of religion. You have accused us of having dogma, you have predicted that we will somehow purge the unfaithful, and perhaps most hilariously, you have compared PZ Myers with the pope.
Yes. There are subjects (i.e. feminism) which can’t be discussed or questioned. This is dogma. Purges of the unfaithful (or less than perfectly faithful) have happened. And PZ Myers doesn’t have a little boy under his hat, so he’s not the pope.
> The root of these claims seems to be the fact that atheism plus makes positive normative and factual claims, rather than the singular negative truth-claim (“There is no god”) of dictionary atheism.
You have not understood the counter-arguments. Atheism is this: You need to prove a god exists before I can believe in it.
Atheism+ is based on dogmatic beliefs (see above). As such, it is expressly hostile to the foundational tenents of Atheism. e.g. “You need to prove to me that X discrimination exists before I believe in it”. But when people say that, they get insulted, called “mouth breather MRAs”, and banned. These are precisely the actions of a dogmatic cult.
> In making this argument, you have effectively equated any sort of positive belief with religious faith,
This is a blatant straw man. The “any sort of positive belief” is complete B.S. It is expressly ONE “positive” belief that opponents dislike: the belief in certain provably wrong “social justice” dogmas.
> arguing that atheism must absolutely not move beyond the non-existence of a supreme being.
Yes. Exactly. Atheism *is* the demand that the existence of a supreme being be proven by evidence. Conflating it with something else means you are re-defining atheism. This causes a visceral reaction in people who are atheists. They already know what atheism is.
The other commenters have it right. You could call yourselves “Atheists for social justice”, and no one would have a problem. Calling yourself “Atheism+” means that you’re re-labeling Atheism, and insinuating (by name alone) that you’re better than “normal” atheists. This attitude is proven by the massive hostility shown towards anyone who dares question the foundational dogma of A+
> Isn’t this just a little bit preposterous? If the only acceptable philosophical position for atheists to entertain is doubt, and any violation of this rule constitutes a form of religious faith, then we’ll have to purge all enthusiasm for science from atheist settings.
Another straw man. Atheists can hold many philosophical positions. They can be liberal, conservative, communist, straight, gay, etc. But there’s no “liberal atheism”, and no “conservative atheism”. The religious faith we object to is (again) the dogmatic belief in certain “social justice” issues, and the frothing hostility and banning when those beliefs are questioned.
> If you disagree with our conclusions, then you are welcome to ask us to show our work, and to point out errors in our logic.
That has not been my experience with A+. I’ve commented and asked questions under other pseudonyms. The result? Insults and banning.
If I go to a Christian forum, and say “Hi, I was raised mostly atheist, but i”m curious. Can you tell me about your beliefs?” I get friendly answers.
If I go to an atheism forum, and say “Hi, I was raised mostly christian, but i”m curious. Can you tell me about your beliefs?” I get friendly answers.
If I go to an A+ forum, and say “Hi, I was raised mostly atheist, but i”m curious. Can you tell me about your beliefs?” I get told “You need to go read some more before commenting”. And “this isn’t the place to learn about it”. If I persist, I get banned.
These are the actions of a dogmatic cult. If you want a “safe place” for discussions, have a private invite-only members forum. If you want a public discussion, it looks bad when you ban people who ask questions.
> More than that, I would argue that the vitriolic opposition to atheism plus actually exemplifies the very worst of religion.
The very worst of religion is genocide. The fact that you need to resort to such extreme comparisons shows just how empty your arguments are.
> If you are right about us, and we are actually basing our ethical system on something akin to religious faith, then as a religion, atheism plus is really quite innocuous.
I don’t see how you can say that with a straight face. Especially after the previous sentence you wrote.
The foundational falsehoods of *all* religion are dogmatic beliefs, which are counter to reality. As such, they explicitly prevent people from dealing with reality as it exists. The dangers of this cannot be over-stated. Dogmatic faith in falsity leads to death, abuse, coverups, threats, exclusion, expulsion, shaming, and dehumanizing your opponents.
> The first characteristic you share with religious extremists is that you insist that others exercise their atheism only on your terms.
And that’s where I’m done. Atheism has a well-known definition. *YOU* are the one trying to change the definition. *YOU* are the one attacking people who don’t want the definition changed. *YOU* are the one saying that “normal” atheisms are religious extremists for opposing the addition of dogma to atheism.
I cannot in all good conscience support *any* part of atheismplus.
Liz
October 1, 2012
This seems to me to be a classic problem of intersectionality. There’s always a certain extent to which saying “I want x for society because I am identified as y” is going to be a fraught thing to do, because lots of people who disagree with x but also identify as y are going to have a strong emotional response to that. Even if you never say, “others who are y should think x,” it seems that that’s universally what people take away as their gut reaction to your statement.
I have long felt that “I want x for society” (perhaps followed up later with “I am identified as y” if appropriate) is a simpler approach because it avoids the implication, however unintentional, that all y’s do or should want x.
I follow very little of the atheist identity debates (in no small part because many atheists of different stripes, including and perhaps especially Jen McCreight, have done a tremendous amount to alienate me as a thinker, as a person of faith, and as a member of certain marginalized communities), but it seems to me that this is a large part of the issue here. “Atheism” covers such a large variety of personal and political beliefs that there’s bound to be intense disagreement over a tremendous variety of social, moral, and political positions, and it’s awfully hard to cobble together an identity around that.
Liz
October 1, 2012
Basically, any time I hear someone say “Atheism is…” I know it’s not going to be pretty. It’s like saying “Queer means…” or “Europeans are…”
Falsum
October 1, 2012
I think that’s bang on, and it’s something the haters fail to realize. A cultural, religious, sexual, or any other identity is not a good basis for a program of political action. I think this is particularly true of atheism, which lacks the history and moral and political traditions of other identities (both religious and not), and is at it’s core, just the denial of something. There are a few identifiable atheist identities that exist, but they are of course not all-encompassing.
What bothers me about a lot of the opposition to atheism plus is that it insists that there can be no identities built up from within atheism. It objects to atheists saying “I am x and I think y” in any organized way, and it does this mainly based on the dictionary definition of the word “atheism”.
I think you’re right about the problematic nature of identity politics, but I think it should be seen as a valid move for a group of people who share both an identity and a particular perspective on the implications of that identity to say “We are x and we think y”. That’s what atheism plus is trying to do, and that’s what it’s opponents are so angry about.
atheismplusone
October 2, 2012
It objects to atheists saying “I am x and I think y” in any organized way,
This lie is proven false by the previous comments. “I am an atheist and I believe in X” is fine. Everyone says it’s fine. No one is objecting to it. Only A+ proponents are spreading the lie that there is any opposition to that statement.
What people object to is the co-opting of an existing term. They object to the vilification of people who fight that co-opting.
it does this mainly based on the dictionary definition of the word “atheism”.
Yes, exactly. If you try to re-define “freedom” as “my jackboot stomping on your face”, people will object.
That’s what atheism plus is trying to do, and that’s what it’s opponents are so angry about.
You’re ignoring the comments proving this false. The opponents tell you why they’re angry. You don’t believe them. Instead, you attribute their emotions to some wild straw-man argument.
This is why I object to atheism+. It is so counter to reality that the people involved have to lie about their opponents. Telling the truth about their opponents means they have to face the truth: their position is a lie.
It’s just as dogmatic as creationism. It’s just as full of lies. It’s just as full of vilification of its opponents.
Wake up and enter reality. Your opponents are angry for the reasons they state.
Liz
October 3, 2012
I think, to be frank, that it’s a question less of validity and more of feasibility. I do think that “we are x and we think y” is a valid thing for a group of people to say, but I also think that if those folks think that the majority of people hearing that statement are going to welcome it, then frankly they are kidding themselves. “We are x and we think y” is always going to be fraught with controversy: from other x’s who don’t think y, from people who think y but aren’t x, and from people who neither are x nor think y and think the x’s who think y are a bunch of degenerate crackpots.
There are times when my identities strongly and unavoidably inform my opinions, because those opinions come from a perspective that’s primarily constructed through that identity. But I also realise that those are the opinions that, when I express them, are going to generate the biggest shitstorm.
I will be perfectly honest: although I have no opinion on Atheism Plus as a movement, I have noticed that a lot of its members seem to view co-optation of terms, experiences, etc. as strikingly non-problematic. Many of the more high-profile members (Jen McCreight again; I really can’t stand her as a thinker) seem to feel no obligation to confront their privilege or situate themselves in a community-focussed context. It pisses me off, and I’m not even an atheist; I can’t imagine how much it would piss me off if I shared an identity with those folks (oh, wait, no, I can, because Jen McCreight keeps trying to co-opt my queer identity!!!)
I love you dearly, and I have tremendous respect for you, and, to be honest, even after reading your blog posts, I’m confused as to why you, a non-asshole, want to join a movement that seems primarily composed of assholes.
Liz
October 3, 2012
Not that there aren’t a bunch of assholes involved with Plain Old Atheism, too. I’m not saying Atheism Plus has a monopoly on it, here. Richard Dawkins is a colossal asshole. But, you know what? Much as I can’t stand him, at least he’s a wrongheaded, abrasive, short-sighted, narrowminded jackass on his own terms; he lives in his own (horrible-seeming) world and doesn’t bother tiptoeing into others, let alone borrowing from them.
It’s hard to express what I find so grating about the Blag Hags of the world, but I guess it’s mostly that they have a lot of that same narrowmindedness and short-sightedness but are somehow less aware of it. They’re like that white guy that thinks he ‘gets’ what it’s like to be a PoC. It drives me bonkers.
Liz
October 3, 2012
Hubris! Hubris is the word I want.