Robert_S wrote:Atheism Plus is old hat!

Won't someone please join my new movement: Atheism Double Plus!

A little late, that!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1438568

Regina wrote:

Robert_S wrote:Atheism Plus is old hat!

Won't someone please join my new movement: Atheism Double Plus!

A little late, that!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1438568

Did you mean for there to be an Orwellian reference?

Nope, just that I've already started the new A++, double strength, squeaky-clean movement.

Splitter!!!

Robert_S wrote:

Regina wrote:

Robert_S wrote:Atheism Plus is old hat!

Won't someone please join my new movement: Atheism Double Plus!

A little late, that!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1438568

Did you mean for there to be an Orwellian reference?

I've already been there over at rationalia (as a parody thread of a parody thread), http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39094

(Uncle Orph'sTM Special Grade A± popcorn - "We're the Best. More or less." )

Robert_S wrote:Splitter!!!

Splinter, more like.

orpheus wrote:

byofrcs wrote:A+ ?

Meh, I'm going to start a group called A# - A sharp. More brighter than brights.

Are you with me ?

I'll go you one better. A##. Slogan: "That's what you should B."

Oh, and another thing:

A#, yeah, sure. But which one? Only mine is right. The others are the cause of all the evil in the world. Octave equivalence is for douchebags.

Hmmph.

Regina wrote:

Robert_S wrote:Splitter!!!

Splinter, more like.

You gonna sic the turtles on me? Bring it!

I mean it, if you guys can kick my ass, Ill give you a free t-shirt! http://store.richarddawkins.net/product ... id-t-shirt

How to bake an Atheism+ Cake

First you’ll need plenty of Painter’s Drop Cloths. Spread them liberally around your Fiefdom to prevent shit stains. Generally when one has diarrhea of the mouth it’s inevitable that some shit will spread beyond the actual baking area. Next cover yourself in horseshit so no one will notice when you start talking.

Now we’re ready to bake our cake!

• First gather a large group of gullible people together and have them stand in a circle... careful! Don’t jerk them.
• Next add a heaping tablespoon of “mansplaining”... sprinkle liberally.
• Now add in 1½ cups of misogyny. Stir well.
• Blend in 2 pounds of unadulterated cow shit. If your supermarket is out of cow shit, cow pies will do....
• Bring the mixture of gullible people to a boil and tell them how bad everyone else is.
• Set to one side and let the gullible people write favourable blog posts about you while they cool off.
• Now add in 1,000s of pre-made insults. These are used by the gullible people for “those that just don’t get it.”
• Now that the mixture is cool add in 2½ pounds of “Guys, don’t do that.” Stir frantically and with vigour!
• Next add 5 heaping tablespoons of pure hypocrisy. Since hypocrisy flows freely, two turns with a spatula should do it.
• Add in a ¼ cup of “Brain Be Gone”, careful now, don’t overdo it. (Sometimes just a sprinkle is enough.)
• Now stir the mixture into a frothing frenzy of gooey followers!
• Next place your mixture into a blog oven and bake for an hour.

That’s it! You’re now ready to serve the community an Atheism+ cake.

I give it a B minus. Could have been a solid B but it fell a little short.

The name is horrid, the positive presentation is meh, the "With us or against us" rhetoric really turns me off. It seems that they didn't run the idea past critical eyes first. That's probably understandable since they seem to attract a lot of trolls. But perhaps the idea isn't 100% shit in every conceivable way.



Maybe something kinda like it ought to exist. Take for example the first A+ http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/non-believers-giving-aid-t-shirt

That's a pretty good idea IMO. To give is a good thing. To give to charity this way raises awareness both of the problems of the world to atheist community and to the rest of the society that atheists are caring people too.

Actually, it might be a good thing to have an openly atheist contingent in progressive activism as well as a group of people who are willing to raise awareness about problems and solutions concerning gender, orientation, class, race and so on. Non-belief also gives us a perspective different from all the religions positions out there which may be useful to broader social causes.

Just a thought, please don't call me a Nazi sympathiser.

Made of Stars wrote:PPS. A nice tweet by Steve Zara that sums up my view nicely:

Steve Zara wrote:This is what I support: #scienceandreason - it doesn't need a '+' or special rules.

Yup. Don't forget #reasonandscience too.

Robert_S wrote:The name is horrid, the positive presentation is meh, the "With us or against us" rhetoric really turns me off. It seems that they didn't run the idea past critical eyes first. That's probably understandable since they seem to attract a lot of trolls. But perhaps the idea isn't 100% shit in every conceivable way.



Maybe something kinda like it ought to exist. Take for example the first A+ http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/non-believers-giving-aid-t-shirt

That's a pretty good idea IMO. To give is a good thing. To give to charity this way raises awareness both of the problems of the world to atheist community and to the rest of the society that atheists are caring people too.

Actually, it might be a good thing to have an openly atheist contingent in progressive activism as well as a group of people who are willing to raise awareness about problems and solutions concerning gender, orientation, class, race and so on. Non-belief also gives us a perspective different from all the religions positions out there which may be useful to broader social causes.

Just a thought, please don't call me a Nazi sympathiser.

Well I wouldn’t call you a Nazi sympathiser... everyone’s view is welcome regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.

Setting goals is fine in my opinion. What I don’t like is the dictatorial manner in which certain select groups demand, not ask, for cooperation.

Here’s a tiny snippet from my own experience...

I have a friend that’s in sales (bonds, stocks etc.) he once told me that the second, the very second you insult a potential customer, you’ll lost them. No amount of sweet talking will get them back. For example:

A potential customer says something really stupid. Now if you challenge them, make them look dumb, insult them etc. your sale if gone and gone forever.

What my friend told me is he says this to them. (Not verbatim, it depends on what was said etc.)

“That’s a very interesting position and many people agree with it, but have you ever looked at it this way?”

Now he takes them full circle away from what they said and gets them onto his side. They don’t feel dumb about what they said because he reinforced their view prior to getting them to see the other side of the issue.

The problem with Skepchicks, FTB etc. is they insult their potential customers. They hammer away at them, they fire-off insults, they humiliate them, and they demean them etc. They steadfastly refuse to even let them speak. Oh, they can speak for a very limited time, but then they’re shot down with insults and then banned. The fan base then piles on them and uses every disgusting term imaginable as a send-off gift.

If anyone wants to unite atheists, then they need to drop the “mansplaining” bullshit, the “Don’t be a Dick” speeches and so on ad nauseam.

When you insult people you just put their backs against a wall and they’ll fight you tooth and nail. That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. Healthy dialog is a two-way street, not one-way. As long as it is one-way and dictatorial, they’ll fail to win over converts or to even change most peoples' attitudes.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Robert_S wrote:The name is horrid, the positive presentation is meh, the "With us or against us" rhetoric really turns me off. It seems that they didn't run the idea past critical eyes first. That's probably understandable since they seem to attract a lot of trolls. But perhaps the idea isn't 100% shit in every conceivable way.



Maybe something kinda like it ought to exist. Take for example the first A+ http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/non-believers-giving-aid-t-shirt

That's a pretty good idea IMO. To give is a good thing. To give to charity this way raises awareness both of the problems of the world to atheist community and to the rest of the society that atheists are caring people too.

Actually, it might be a good thing to have an openly atheist contingent in progressive activism as well as a group of people who are willing to raise awareness about problems and solutions concerning gender, orientation, class, race and so on. Non-belief also gives us a perspective different from all the religions positions out there which may be useful to broader social causes.

Just a thought, please don't call me a Nazi sympathiser.

Well I wouldn’t call you a Nazi sympathiser... everyone’s view is welcome regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.

Setting goals is fine in my opinion. What I don’t like is the dictatorial manner in which certain select groups demand, not ask, for cooperation.

Here’s a tiny snippet from my own experience...

I have a friend that’s in sales (bonds, stocks etc.) he once told me that the second, the very second you insult a potential customer, you’ll lost them. No amount of sweet talking will get them back. For example:

A potential customer says something really stupid. Now if you challenge them, make them look dumb, insult them etc. your sale if gone and gone forever.

What my friend told me is he says this to them. (Not verbatim, it depends on what was said etc.)

“That’s a very interesting position and many people agree with it, but have you ever looked at it this way?”

Now he takes them full circle away from what they said and gets them onto his side. They don’t feel dumb about what they said because he reinforced their view prior to getting them to see the other side of the issue.

The problem with Skepchicks, FTB etc. is they insult their potential customers. They hammer away at them, they fire-off insults, they humiliate them, and they demean them etc. They steadfastly refuse to even let them speak. Oh, they can speak for a very limited time, but then they’re shot down with insults and then banned. The fan base then piles on them and uses every disgusting term imaginable as a send-off gift.

If anyone wants to unite atheists, then they need to drop the “mansplaining” bullshit, the “Don’t be a Dick” speeches and so on ad nauseam.

When you insult people you just put their backs against a wall and they’ll fight you tooth and nail. That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. Healthy dialog is a two-way street, not one-way. As long as it is one-way and dictatorial, they’ll fail to win over converts or to even change most peoples' attitudes.

Yes. Moreover, they alienate, make enemies of, and simply lose people who actually already agree with them. This can readily be seen in Carrier's blog.

So, I'm wondering, is that hostility a consciously thought out strategy or is it the result of frustration stemming from being excessively trolled and hated on?

I feel that those seeking to promote an A+ or A++ "Atheist Movement" (which looks a bit like Atheism 2.0 relaunched) have not really taken on board that you cannot really define or describe a person or group by what they do not believe in. What can a specifically atheistic political movement be other than broadly secular, and if so, what wrong with calling it a "secular movement"? If the agenda is broadly liberal then the epithet "liberal secularism" might reasonably apply; if it's more right-leaning then "radical secularism" might serve them better.

Robert_S wrote:So, I'm wondering, is that hostility a consciously thought out strategy or is it the result of frustration stemming from being excessively trolled and hated on?

Could be one, the other, or a combination. I think in many cases, it's something else entirely: lack of both maturity and of the patience required to think carefully before posting.

orpheus wrote:

Robert_S wrote:So, I'm wondering, is that hostility a consciously thought out strategy or is it the result of frustration stemming from being excessively trolled and hated on?

Could be one, the other, or a combination. I think in many cases, it's something else entirely: lack of both maturity and of the patience required to think carefully before posting.

Oh, I've done that shit! I posted some truly horrid nonsense venomous crap when I've been pissed off so I can't really judge too hard there.