What Atheism+ Could Have Been

[rug]

This started out as one post but quickly grew to be far too long for a single post. So I'm dividing it into a two -parter. This part orients the reader to what Atheism+ was and reviews a few of the problems with Atheism+ that prevented it from succeeding. The second part will take up the question of how Atheism+ could have been successful and how something like it could work in the future.



October 2, 2013

On August 19, 2012, blogger Jen McCreight unleashed "Atheism+" upon unsuspecting atheists around the world, and some would say our community has been divided ever since. Of course, that is not true. We were already divided, and while Atheism+ was certainly experienced as divisive by many, it would be inaccurate to say that it alone brought about "the great rift."

For those of us who are willing to admit that we make mistakes, our missteps often provide us with valuable opportunities to learn he we might get it right next time. What I'd like to suggest here is that even mistakes made by others might contain valuable lessons from which we might someday be able to benefit. Some will suggest that this post may be premature, and they may be right. Some are not quite ready to recognize the demise of Atheism+. Still, I think it might be useful to consider what was, what might have been, and what could still be for atheists who are serious about social justice.

Atheism+

At the time of Jen's initial statement of Atheism+, many of us said that the idea behind Atheism+ sounded good. What we were less enthusiastic about was the implementation. Some complained about the name itself; others asked whether what was being described here wasn't already part of humanism. Still others were turned off by the manner in which Atheism+ quickly became an "us vs. them" endeavor that seemed to be more about branding, self-promotion, and purging the atheist community of those who were not liked by those who decided to promote Atheism+ than it did about social justice. Let's set all of that aside for a moment and take a closer look at Jen's initial statement of Atheism+.

Here is how Jen initially described it:

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/10/what-atheism-could-have-been.html

Part 2:

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/10/what-atheism-could-have-been-part-ii.html

[intaglio]

1. Well, having read both halves of that self serving garbage

I think I have just wasted 10 minutes of my life.

From the second part:
1) we gather that A+ should have had a more descriptive name. The alternative suggested by this person is "Atheists for Social Justice" not a snappy title, and wrong as social justice is only part of the plus; a matter the author completely ignores.

2) The author, Jack Vance, (not the SF writer) claims that A+ should have been "inclusive and welcoming," ignoring the fact that it was not designed to be inclusive and welcoming to the atheists who are as willfully blind as this author. A+ tried being welcoming to Thunderf00t believing him to have the requisite qualities and found out directly about his dishonesty, deception, bigotry and lack of critical thinking.

3) Of course Mr Vance wants A+ to spend more time advancing a social justice agenda, blithely unaware that advancing such an agenda requires attacking bigots and disruptors within the atheist movement as well as fighting back against the vile slanders put about about A+ members. Those same slanderers falsely claimed that a warning about sleazy behaviour was a libel which if true would have gone to court.

4) Mr Vance also wants A+ to "Adopt a broad social justice agenda that looks beyond the atheist movement" which discounts the major element of the name i.e. Atheist. If course this point is merely a restatement of his previous one.

5) Apparently Mr Vance thinks that A+ should be open to criticism whilst seeming to exempt the rest of the atheist movement. The whole point is not that A+ believes itself immune but that prior to A+ there was little criticism or critical thinking about the bigotry, laddism, denial and exclusion practised the bulk of the movement.

6) Well according to this part A+ does not currently "Model the values one seeks to inspire," like including women and men in discussions, listening to minorities and pressing their case if justified.

Mr Vance needs to remove the beam from his eye.

[MellowDem]

2. Might of well just called it liberal atheists...

A lot of the negative reaction I saw to it was from other people that shared the same views. However, where the line was drawn on what was sexism or bigotry is what caused a fuss, just like here on DU, just as would be expected of any large, liberal group.

I think secular humanists have it covered.